A very measured presentation of the difficulties surrounding the topic. On top of everything you've already presented, the other real issue complicating things is that we're not just dealing with the normal population. We're dealing with the most extreme, highest performing humans that have likely ever been born and trained for freakish levels of physical performance. Genetic factors, epigenetic factors, the random mutations you mentioned, etc., all are going to be abnormally represented in Olympians over the general population. This will get thornier and thornier as our understanding of those factors in relation to physical performance gets better. The argument to absurdity is that we're headed for Gattaca or Eugenics-like arguments creeping in, and defining "Genetic Classes" (ala weight classes) to better organize people into their peer groups for proper competition. Forget messy classifications of "Man" and "Woman", it might get a lot worse and even more contentious.
No, it's about testing their performance in sex for the new kinds of sports. It's actually pretty tricky to develop a scoring system and determine the winnner
Agree with everything but I think a nuance that’s often missed, is that olympians are already at the extreme of many of these scales. They are, by definition, exceptional, not normal people. You typically expect and DO find extreme variances in traits like muscle mass, hormones, etc even in those who WITHOUT intersex traits just by the nature of “selecting the athletes.” It muddies the water even more, so much so that the already shaky belief that men and women are easily defined and separated…… completely collapses.
Category differences exist. No human can run as fast as an (able-bodied) cheetah, because there are fundamental differences between our physiology. While it is absolutely true that athletes exist on the extreme end of the performance distribution for their sex, it does not follow that this muddies the performance differences between sexes. Which is evident from records. To put it in statistics terms, sex produces bimodal distributions in performance - in bipodal distributions, the 99th percentiles do not typically overlap. It's worth stressing that intersex conditions _do not_ offer advantages in male sports. If the distribution were truly muddied, you'd expect to see successful intersex athletes in male sports - you don't. What you're essentially seeing is the equivalent of humans running against disabled cheetah - which winds up making the whole contest more about just how disabled the cheetah really is, than individual athlete performance, because the category advantage offered by _being a cheetah_ is so huge. It's also worth noting how _insanely rare_ some of these conditions are. There have only been a few hundred reported cases of 5-ARD (which Caster Semenya has), in the world. The very fact that somebody with this condition ended up winning gold at the olympics demonstrates the power of sex advantages and selection effects.
Well, many sports have an open and women's divisions, so men aren't scrutinized in these cases. Men are also not scrutinized for sex or gender because being a trans-man puts you at a disadvantage in men's sports. The fact of the matter is that trans people could possibly have an effect on women's sports, so those who want to compete as women will bear most of the burden for showing it.
nuance!!! thanks for this, healthcare triage. being this informative and data-driven and easy to follow is something i really value from this channel. best wishes!
3:55 The effects of extra testosterone in women might not have been investigated separately, but isn't it reasonable to assume that more testosteron leads to more muscle growth? After all, isn't that why anabolic steroids are effective, because they increase testosterone? I fully agree that there are a lot of unknowns still, but there are things we do know and until proper testing has been done we can make certain assumptions, i.e. testosterone increases muscle growth. And some of the results of the last olympics do confirm those assumptions.
The "we don't know" thing is bordering on being a lie, while there is a lot we don't know, we have a pretty good understanding on how testosterone improves sports performance.
Anabolic steroids increase testosterone into many thousands while natural testosterone levels of a professional male athlete can be like 300-400. There is no direct correlation between testosterone levels and performance if you actually measure both, the relationship is way more complicated than just higher numbers equal better performance. You can easily happen to have natural testosterone up in 900-1000 range yet all it will do is make you bald and whiny and angy. And a dude with 300 will run circles around you
I mean, high testosterone levels are considered a medical issue in women for a reason. They can cause lots and lots of negative side effects . I would know ! I have to take testosterone blockers ! I don't even have high testosterone levels, I have a high testosterone sensitivity making my body react like I have way more testosterone than I actually do. And sports leagues don't even test for sensitivity as far as I know so they are only ever testing one half of the equation to begin with! like by god, people are out here acting like some naturally high testosterone will make a woman into a sports machine while I'm taking tetsosterone blockers cause it made my Period a mess of up to 2 weeks with pain that made it hard to use my legs and occasionally caused anemia , absolutely fucked up my blood sugar and made me gain a lot of fat. things that would absolutely suck for an athlete. It's not even like high testosterone levels are rare! hyperandrogenism is way more common that what that olympic skier had going on. As in even the first paragraph of the wikipedia page will tell u that about 5% of women have it. and again, that's not even taking into account hormone sensitivity which is a huge factor in all of this too. complete androgen insensitivity syndrome is an intersex condition where someone with XY chromosome develops female anyway because they are completely insensitive to testosterone and thus their bodies while developing in the womb miss the signals to develop male and just develop as female instead. you can call them Genetically male all you want but chromosome tests are a new thing so for most of history those were just infertile women with unusually little body hair. As for modern sports, you can do a chromosome test on them and say they don't belong in women's sports, but they aren't exactly getting any benefits from the tesosterone their body entirely ignores. that is of course an extreme example, but what i want to get at is that a hormone level alone is very incomplete information. I naturally have hairier legs than most men I know unmedicated, but I'd pass those hormone tests just fine unmedicated too. Those tests aren't even good enough to test how much testosterone is doing for women ! It really is not as clear cut as people who have never even talked to an endocrinologist would like you to believe.
The highest frequency estimate I found for DSD was 1 in 5000 when searching the web. Which page of the reference manual in life sciences was your 1-3% figure found on? I wish to evaluate what research that work is referencing, as I suspect an error.
Many high end Olympians have some sort of physical advantage over their peers. Michael Phelps, for example, has especially long arms and legs, and has ankles that flex further than others, giving him a flipper like effect for his swimming.
Yes, but to use your example if you compare the very best swimming results ever in the women's division they wouldn't even be in the top 20 of the men's division. Gender differences in sport exist for the same reason that many sports have weight classes. Not to hold people back from competing but to allow more people to be rewarded for the talent they show amongst their peers. If they didn't exist most sports that favor the traits of men or women would be dominated but one of the two.
Which is why every sport should have groups and gradations. Not based on gender per se, but on whatever innate human characteristics are the defining and relevant in that sport It is in fact ridiculous that you will never ever become good at swimming regardless how much you train and regardless how driven and willing you are. So what are we even doing then and why?... Sports are supposed to be about human spirit and achievement, not genetic competition like dog shows where weird specimen are fighting for our amusement
@@NJ-wb1cz you just can't do a gradation to that extent. Even weight classes are slightly too much given how many there are and they top out at a certain time.
@@neosovereign why? Every sport defines just fine what the proper parameters can be, what can be allowed to be taken, what can be used to treat particular diseases by particular people and what can't be. We already do extremely complicated slicing of allowable bodies and what a particular person is allowed to do to their body, but what they are allowed to do isn't necessarily what another person is allowed to do. The categories already exist, but they are ethereal, extremely niche, and exclude the vast majority of people anyway. Typically the groups are organized just so that one group is selected to be above others that can be changed arbitrarily at any time, and that's just silly
Fundamentally, the problem is creating a "easy class" always means that competitors will forever be trying to get into that easier class. Have you ever seen what combat-sports enthusiasts will do to "cut weight" and make it down a weight class? It was an annual ritual when I was in highschool with the wrestlers: you knew it was wrestling season because they were all in sweat shirts and two or three layers of pants and carrying bottles to spit in and eating one bite from each thing at lunch and on and on, all in the hopes of not having to wrestle someone five pounds heavier that was doing the exact same thing to get down for the exact same reason. And when I did Kung Fu, my teacher was very certain that measuring arm and leg length would mean more than measuring weight in stand-up fighting, but that weight was a good enough proxy for that not to be worth rocking the boat. Whenever we create a class of "easier" sports in the name of fairness, there will always be people just on the cusp that feel like it's unfair. It doesn't matter how we divide it up. The only way we can get around that is to have no divisions at all. You mentioned the skier that is respected for his mutation: he's also competing in the "highest level," not a level specifically created to protect those with natural disadvantages. He has a helpful mutation, but he's not trying to cut weight to compete against someone five pounds lighter just so he can have an easier competition. I'm not saying that these are bad, but we do need to carefully consider what we are trying to protect and what we see as unfair that leads to creating these categories in the first place. Weight classes exist for a very simple reason: without them, all the winners will be 350 lbs or more, and that's got more to do with physics than skill. If we abolish women's classes, what will happen? If that's unfair, why? This will, of course, vary by sport. After doing martial arts for 20 years, I'm not entirely convinced that mixed-gender martial arts with a minor adjustment on weight class based on hormone levels is entirely unfair. Probably will have to measure more than just T, but T might be a good enough proxy for the rest to just do that. It will probably take a little study to do a "this much T means add this much to the weight" chart, but I think we could do that.
@@ShaunCKennedyAuthor with fighting there are cultural and historical problems with making women fight men, even if they will fight femboys that are similar to them in most ways. I think that's not a place to start What we could do, is say, add classes in cycling. First based on weight because it's intuitively obvious that someone weighing 400 lbs probably won't perform like Froome. Then start further honing in on what makes some people fundamentally better than others. And then gender will probably slide into this semi-automatically at some point when we realise that we don't really need to separate men and women for most classes anymore because we already accounted for their differences by testing them
the women in the olympics are also competing at the top of their dicipline and they aren't cutting pounds by competing with their bodies as they natually are. heck, that is what the olympics wants to force them to in some cases! Semenya, an olympic runner, has naturally high testosterone due to a medical condition. And to compete again the olympics asked her to take medication to reduce the natural testosterone levels of her body. She refused, so she hasn't competed again since. the Women's olympics isn't the " easy" league for women it's the fucking highest one there is for them And they aren't trying to sneak their way into it through contorting their bodies in these cases. their bodies are just naturally like that. In what way are they trying to game the system with a medical condition they were born with ??? Yeah the women don't have a "no medical conditions" allowed league to fall back on but neither do men. they both have to face that their league is gonna have people that have some physical advantages. be it a medical condition or just being taller and having eyesight that is way better the average.
I think maybe best way of solving this is going the way of the paralympics, with classifications. Variance is simply too great across a range of factors to have generic classifications. (Well, it works sort of, but the amount of outliers is only going to increase as people who were previously socially excluded from sport are more welcome) But perhaps no one would agree on those classifications either. The issue is, there will always be edge cases regardless. Many of them are ignored because they do not impact results of competition, but when they do, its very hard to decide what is a 'natural' advantage vs an 'unfair' one.
The video misleads at 2:47 with a controversial stat saying 1-3% of people have a DSD. When we're thinking about genetic tests for women's sports, the **relevant** DSDs are XX males and XY females. Those are the conditions for which an XX chromosomal test for females would give us a false positive (XX male) and a false negative (XY female). But those conditions are very, very rare! XX males have an incidence of about .004%. XY females have an incidence of about .00125% - .02%. You can Google those syndromes to verify those stats. So, despite this video's attempt to make biological sex as complicated as possible, these easy genetic tests would have a low error rate, and therefore be a pretty simple way to make sure only females compete in female sports. (Also, let me preempt a possible misreading: I do not think biological sex is defined by chromosomes. The two sexes--male and female--are defined in terms of functions to produce either large or small gametes. And, of course, functions may not be realized! A male may malfunction, and not produce any small gametes, just as a toaster may malfunction and not produce any toast, or a kidney may malfunction and not filter waste.)
@@omazingbobb1671 If sports are segregated by males and females, and we check for XX sex chromosomes to sort males from females, the only false positives will be males with XX chromosomes, and the only false negatives will be females with XY chromosomes. Those are very rare conditions, so this is a pretty good test to help sort the males from the females. No?
@@omazingbobb1671 If we want a female division in sports, then we'd like a test that could distinguish males from females. Testing for XX chromosomes would yield false positives only in the case of XX males, and false negatives only in the case of XY females. These are both very, very rare conditions, so it's a pretty good test! Of course, our genetic test would disclose other chromosomal arrangements as well, e.g. XXY, or XO, etc. But my understanding is that, in such cases (which are also very rare!), it's pretty well established whether the individual is male or female. For example, the Mayo Clinic says this about XXY: "Klinefelter syndrome is a genetic condition that results when a boy is born with an extra copy of the X chromosome."
@@tbogardus1 if you really wanted to be sure, you could test for specific markers on the SRY gene. No SRY gene, be it on the Y chromosome or anywhere else, definitely biologically female.
@omazingbobb1671 If we want a female division in sports, then we'd like a test that could distinguish males from females. Testing for XX chromosomes would yield false positives only in the case of XX males, and false negatives only in the case of XY females. These are both very, very rare conditions, so it's a pretty good test! Of course, our genetic test would disclose other chromosomal arrangements as well, e.g. XXY, or XO, etc. But my understanding is that, in such cases (which are also very rare!), it's pretty well established whether the individual is male or female. For example, the Mayo Clinic says this about XXY: "Klinefelter syndrome is a genetic condition that results when a boy is born with an extra copy of the X chromosome."
If there are no clear testable biological criteria that identify someone as having an unfair advantage in women's sports, does it even make sense to have it as a separate category at all? Why not just have everyone, regardless of gender or sex assigned at birth, compete together on equal footing?
So, no sports for the 99.9999% of people because they aren't enough of a mutant by definition? What's the goal of such competition, find the weirdest human bodies honed for specific weird activities we make up to send to some alien overlords or something? We can probably learn to do that even without engaging in any sports. Just check the genes of everyone on the planet and proclaim who's the superior creature with better genes
If there are no consistent scientific or medical differences between men and women, then what is the justification for having separate classes and competitions for men and women? Why not just have one competition for everyone? And if your answer to that is that men would then win most competitions to the consistent exclusion of women, maybe consider why that might be, and whether you might want to reconsider the assumption that there are no consistent differences between men and women as demographic classes. I'll believe that you're serious about the claim that there are no differences between men and women when you start advocating for the abolition of sex segregation in competitive Olympic sports.
the video never stated that there were no differences. just that there can be nuanced gray areas. e.g. Why would you exclude a woman who naturally produces more of a hormone that might help her in her sport but not a man who does the same ? Why is natural variance a sign of excellence in men but a horror story in women? like by god, the testosterone tests don't even paint a full picture. I am a cis woman with no intersex condition whatsoever and XX chromosomes that would pass a testosterone test just fine. But I have to take testosterone blockers because I am overly sensitive to it so my body can go way way farther with the same amount of testosterone and I'd prefer to not deal with a mustache or the medical complications that too much testosterone causes. Testing testosterone is only one half, the other is sensitivity. there is is no perfect system. I actually do think some sports could be desegregated ( e.g. shooting, chess) but not all. that said, if you want to segregrate you'll have to deal with fringe cases and gray areas and pretending like it's all black and white isn't gonna help anyone. as I said: take me as an example. I would pass the tests. there is no one and done test for testosterone sensitivity as far as I am aware, my doctor had to do months of observation and medication adjustments to check. I would still have enough testosterone to grow a mustache and I could lift my teachers in elementary school. In a man being able to go far with an average testosterone level would be seen as natural variance and a sign of excellence. They'd write about how he was perfectly made for his sport ! A man being better than average is always humanity's best ! What do you think they'd write about someone like me, as woman by every definition of the word? As far as I can tell by how they've treated athletes so far they'd start cospiracy theories about men sneaking into sports and try to find some way to exclude her, because a woman being "better" than the average must always be brought down for " fairness" . There are always gonna be fringe cases and gray areas. that does not mean there is no distinction. it just means maybe we should start acknowlegeing that we as a society don't only have different sports leagues for men and women but also very different standards. And the ones for women are much much more restrictive. I for one think we should give women the same treatment as men when they by natural variance have an advantage for their sport instead of harassing them about it.
@@keitoimon You failed to explain why you think that most sports that aren't like chess or shooting should remain segregated. That's my point. The reason why we have sex segregated sports is the exact same reason why we need mechanisms to objectively determine who qualifies for which class. Either get on board with desegregated sports, or accept that there needs to be consistent standards for competition that necessarily exclude some people from some categories for the sake of fairness. To reject both is hypocrisy or ignorance.
Because men didn't want to be beaten by women, who were beginning to catch up to them in sports competitions and challenge the assertion that men are better than women. That's it. There never was a "scientific" or "medical" reason for it. Women's sports were invented to _sideline_ woman athletes, not to benefit them.
IMO the US education system fails with this basic biology so much.. Thanks for covering such an easy topic to understand with basic Googling, but it's SO politicized people don't do it..
This video purposefully makes the issue seem more muddied than it actually is. Firstly, the 1-3% stat of those with DSDs is both inflated and meaningless in this context, because it includes Karyotype disorders which have no effect whatever on sex determination (e.g. Klinefelter's and Turners) and the most DSDs are disabling (relative to being an elite athlete, at least). There also isn't a single DSD which offers an advantage in male sports - so I suspect the number of athletes in male events with DSDs is close to 0. More significantly, we know which DSDs are likely to offer male athletic advantage and which wouldn't - if it's a DSD which means you were exposed to high levels of androgens during development, you should expect that person to have male athletic advantage. So if you have CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), you're likely fine to compete. If you have 5-ARD (which means you have internal testes) you aren't. While it's true Karyotype doesn't tell you everything, it's still well within the reach of medical science, if (and you'll pardon the pun), sporting bodies have the balls to be rigorous. It should also be stressed that sex differences in performance, especially for upper body strength, _are not small_ , it's on the order of 175% by most metrics. It's a category difference. If an athlete has a DSD conferring male sex advantage and is competing in a sport where upper body strength is crucial, then that is very likely to swing the result. It's not an edge factor. It's not that hard.
I'm sure this comments section will be extremely cordial /s. In all seriousness, kudos for tackling this topic, and I appreciate the way you present it. There's a robust debate to be had about how to structure women's sports. But any delineation needs to acknowledge the reality that biological sex is not as well-defined as we'd like to think.
It seems to me like it would be far better to separate people in sports not by their biological sex but by capability classes - kind of like weight classes in boxing, or how starting positions are determined in some racing sports. This would allow people to compete with others who are at a similar level in their sport and make competition fairer, fiercer, and more interesting.
Well, some sports do have age categories for masters athletes. Since I have tested anemic for decades, I should definitely have an-old-anemic-guy category.
if you seperate them by wight, the men will win like the two dsd-men during the last olympics. men can hit way harder than women. it`s actually incredibly dangerous to allow men to beat up women, that`s why the italian boxer stoped the fight after the first few seconds. there was no way she could win but a high risk to get severly injured or even killed. it`s madness.
This is a masterclass on how to use nuance and uncertainty to cast doubt on one of the most well established human dimorphisms, which informs the most common sense rule of sex separation in sport. All this doubt only jeopardises womens sports. Thumbs down doctor. You let your progressivism and intelligence carry you away to a bad take.
I always found the Olympics such a funny topic. When considering the number of humans, how high the variations can be, and then considering the olympics specifically filters for the extremes of the extremes, having those arbitrary rules makes the people who take it so seriously look like they're clowning around for some laughs. Yeah, you could consider it to be fine before this modern era where almost anyone has a chance to compete, and before everyone had access to the more advanced technologies that allow us to understand and manipulate our bodies, but now, with all the things we know about hormones, genetics, and all the cutting edge biomechanical engineering, kinesiology etc., when we know that we have the ability to actually push human bodies to extremes and rules after rules are put in place just to prevent specific people from competing in some events, having different competitions that run alongside the main ones that only allow certain types of people that fit certain criteria of performance disadvantages, rules in place of what kind of preparation the competitors are allowed to undergo with discussions of if the advantages come from chance or active interventions like in the guy with the RBC count mutation, it really does seem like a big funny joke at the end of the day that should really not be taken so seriously by so many people.
Biological differences between sexes are already significant at the local junior amateur level, not only the Olympics, so the debate is quite relevant for millions of sports practitioners around the globe. Even with the best technologies currently at our disposal, there is no way to get a population of female athletes to compete at the same level of a population of male athletes, all other variables being equal.
@@gabriyelp biological differences between genders are smaller than other biological differences between people, as evidenced by most people including you and I being biologically less performant than the top women athletes, and thus being unable to train up to a level of beating their records. You keep bringing up biological differences but immediately move on from them the moment the fact of your own biology and your own biological inferiority compared to the top female athletes is brought up So if we actually want to separate people based on real biological capacity, we would use better tests of metabolism, vascular system, skeletal system, etc that actually find out who gets an advantage in a particular sport. And that would actually be a great idea that would spread the groups over much larger amount of people, and would be way more inclusive for absolutely everyone regardless what gender they identify as
Here's a take it didn't think about very hard so totally willing to admit if I overlooked something obvious. But for high level competition would it be so bad to have no separation of genders? Like maybe on something like a local level you can divide things up however you see fit. But the second someone attempts to compete on the national or international stage they're all thrown together to fight for true dominance in their field
There's no such thing and no serious sports competition currently works that way. For example, true dominance in cycling few decades ago included drinking wine and smoking while competing in Tour de France. Now it includes huffing salbutamol like you're dying from an asthma attack. Later it will include something else. Rules change, equipment changes, preparation changes, diets change, training changes, techniques change, chemistry changes, etc. All competition only ever shows who was better among some particular people at a particular time doing particular things And, like, we understand just fine that it's absurd to see who dominates boxing between a 120 lbs lightweight and a 250 lbs heavyweight - these are essentially different sports, with different techniques. It's like trying to see who would "dominate" when one person plays basketball while another plays volleyball. And yet, we just kinda accepted that you can only cycle if you have a body type of a skeletor. Other body types - nope, you can't, no categories for you. It's pointless to develop your own techniques that better use your body, you can't use any advantages your body provides, you just have to try to win at volleyball against people playing basketball, fail, and that's it. And this is how the relationship with sport goes for the vast majority of people - they aren't suitable for it because there is no category for them That is the actual problem. We routinely make people compete in ways that don't make any sense, and somehow deem this "fair". We may as well create a sport just for 11 fingered people because that's essentially what all our sports competitions are, and elite athletes are actually much more rare than people with 6 fingers on one hand
That’s how it was for centuries, and if we made it that way today, it would simply shake out to be “only men” for any sports that are mostly speed, strength, or stamina. There would of course be competitive female archers and curlers and the like, but it would be hugely lopsided. As another commenter pointed out, we have decided as a culture that we WANT to have a class for women, and any time we create such an “easier” class, there will always be people trying to get into that class who don’t belong. Overall, in the opinion of many (including myself), the benefit of giving women a class to compete in is greater than the cost of the imperfect administration which can never be perfect.
I believe that the reason why women's sports comes under such scrutiny is because of the fact that women's sports in general is less competitive than men's sports and the latter tends to almost represent an "open" category if you will that regardless of identity anyone who is good enough can compete. Looking at running statistics we can see how potentially some men may try to take advantage of the women's sport system to obtain some gain which is why the transgender women in sports has become such a contentious issue.
We also require a certain sense of physical fitness. Arguing for the exception of the rule in gender is like arguing for different types of anemia/thalasemia, showing a spectrum and saying that “it’s more complex”. There are certain types of anemia and thalasemia that does not disqualify someone’s physical fitness and others that can be detrimental. One can say the same for DSDs. While we may not have the data, the use of the EPO gene mutation as an example may actually prove my point. If we find that more athletes who are winning have this gene mutation, then we should also allow for those who don’t have this mutation to be allowed to dope. Or we should disqualify unfortunately those who do have EPO mutation because of doping laws. There needs to be a philosophical consistency in these sports. One can eventually ask because of the apparent absurdity of these questions, well what’s the point of spectator sports anyway? Maybe we shouldn’t even bother trying to make a living out of them and not make it spectator anymore but only private so that the people who compete compete for the right reasons, and thus the philosophy of sporting becomes much clearer than the bias of spectator salary, I mean “funding.”
I think the best compromise for now is testosterone levels. Yes, some biological women have high T, but it's still significantly lower than the lower threshold for healthy biological men. We're still dealing with two peaks. Is it perfect? No, but it's probably the best option we have. We can't just tear down gender segregation in sports, anything requiring athletic ability bio men will utterly dominate. And I also don't think it's reasonable to throw out the biological sex binary because of a few DSD anomalies. The majority of these are minor, so minor that many people don't even notice them. They don't make much of a difference to their role in reproduction which is fundamentally what defines biological sex.
What's the point of using gender at all if we are going to measure the particular body of a particular person? Once you deem it necessary to do a detailed testosterone test to determine the categories for everyone, there's no reason not to do a dozen or two other tests to more granularly determine what are the capabilities of a particular person in a particular sport. We have AI now, we can easily do the model training and analysis, and separate people into groups based on their predicted bodily performance
@@NJ-wb1cz Because there would be dozens if not hundreds of categories, all different for each sport, it would be unworkable. Biological sex is by far the biggest factor in differences of performance over all athletic sports, the gap is often enormous.
@@Croz89 why? There are dozens if not hundreds of possible biological differences between genders and we collapse them to just two made up categories just fine. So if we want two - we can make two based on actual ability. If we want 3 or 5 - we can make 3 or 5. If we want dozens for some reason - that's also possible but I doubt we would want that. How often do you see men with huge man ummm "breasts" that require a bra succesfully becoming their nations sprint champions? Do you think it's fair to them to impose a category on them where they are effectively banned from ever dreaing about winning in a sport because we deem that their set of biological gender characteristics must provide them a huge advantage yet in reality it doesn't?
I am friendly with some retired world-class female athletes, whose main problem relates to trans women competing, more than intersex athletes. I certainly am not going to tell them how to think about this issue. But the fact (which you acknowledged) that women have historically had a very rough time finding an equal footing with men in sports says to me that the feelings and opinions of those athletes need to be taken seriously.
They have a problem with trans athletes, but how many have they actually competed and lost to? Spoilers, there are very few, and they don't tend to win. Look at they Olympics for an example. You can't use the history of sexism as an excuse to gatekeep women based on your feelings and not actual performance. Women are women, if they want to compete together that's fine, if they can't tolerate other women that's their misogyny.
@@l01230123 I certainly don't think I get to make that call one way or another. This has shown up in FB postings about actual competitions, by athletes that no longer compete. If you choose to call this misogyny, go right ahead.
@@l01230123 at which number does it matter? isn`t one already too many? also: look up statistics - there are websites that list trans identified males who stole their medals from women. spoiler: it`s not just a few it`s hundrets including sponsorships, etc... the problem is not competing with other women, the problem is men entering our sports and stealing our medals because they can`t score against other males.
@@cinnamon8884 Provide me any source or amount of evidence that this is an actual issue and I'd have zero reason to doubt you. Until you can prove that trans women are causing problems, you need more than you feelings about medals being stolen. Here's a question for you, when Brazil won a women's soccer tournament with a trans teammate, does it bother you that she still wasn't the best player? In your view this situation should be impossible or unlikely, but the only lists I can find of trans women doing well in sports include sports like snooker, team sports, and a lot of runner-up medals.
@@StevenBornfeld I didn't think it was any of our calls. Yeah, there's a lot of transphobia in sports, about as much as there is homophobia, and Facebook is a breeding ground for misinformation and political divisions. It's misogyny, transphobia, cauvanism, bigotry, ignorance: it's a lot of things, but whatever it's most accurately, it isn't based in science.
You're assuming that the people whining about this are using good faith arguments and not emotional "that makes me go ick so it must be bad wrong evil" arguments. None of your logical objections will affect them at all.
I would like to give at least some of these people more credit. When you talk to these people, their thought processes involve both emotion and faulty beliefs. Providing them with better scientific knowledge doesn't guarantee they're going to change their mind, let alone right away. But it's still a good thing to do. I've often changed my mind based on new information, but rarely on the spot.
@@IronMongoose1And it's often not a binary - personally I've come to be supportive of the lgbt community in many areas, but still felt like there was some point to be made about trans athletes in professional sport. I could see the nasty way that many people speak about this issue, but couldn't refute the logic of what they were saying.
Is there any good data on the assumption that "Men", as traditionally defined as we've seen the supposed biological definition is pretty crap, out perform "Women" in athletics in any real generalizable way? Controlled for weight class, economics/nationality, or background (AMAB bodies being encouraged toward sport at a young age as opposed to AFAB) how universal is this? Does it apply across sport? In other words does female only athletics actually have backing beyond a cultural assumption of male physical superiority? I have certainly heard unverified claims that female exclusion from sport in many cases initiated in women out performing men and immediately being excluded or creating a womans version. (shooting competitions were mentioned around this most recent Olympics). I'm asking after actual study of the subject not some guys back of napkin math looking at records on wikipedia.
If you control for everything you will select identical bodies by definition. Gender can be a rough approximation of the baseline like age or weight. So it's like saying, if you control for everything, can you prove that 5 year olds are weaker than 10 year olds? Well, no, you can find identical people some of whom are 5 and some are 10, and thus deem that age doesn't matter in itself. And it doesn't, but we use it as a proxy to guess the rest of parameters as a statistical probability because we couldn't measure them reliably before. Generally speaking, 10 year olds will be stronger than 5 year olds, and generally speaking men will be stronger than women. But of course, there are many women that can absolutely crush me personally :)
Well yeah... A quick Google Scholar search will give you plenty of good examples of controlled studies where differences between males and females are significant in many different athletic and sports activities. Archery and shooting are very specific examples that do not seem to use biological systems where these sex differences appear, but they are by far exceptions. And sex is easily defined in biological terms. It's more about finding the actually relevant biological factors for sports, which are quite strongly related to sexes in biological terms, but not as precisely as we would want in the spirit of fairness in sports. And just in case it wasn't clear, it was always meant for "men" and "women" in sports to actually mean "male" and "female", but lately, it seems that some people wanted to ascribe linguistics terms or pseudopsychology to biology, but hey, we don't need to have this debate to discuss the idea of creating distinct categories based on biological factors.
@@gabriyelp no, there aren't. You are a man, and it's statistically unlikely for you to outperform women in a generalizable way, and it's unlikely that you can get better than all women at all sports even with the best training Meaning, there are much bigger differences in performance between other categories that aren't genders. Your male advantage is dwarfed by other advantages other people have over you. Which means if we're making categories to make competition fair, it makes no sense to use just this lesser factor and ignore the actually defining ones that can actually predict if some particular person can feasibly compete with another particular person or not.
@@NJ-wb1cz What the hell are you babbling about? Did you even try to do the said Google Scholar search? I'm looking at it right now. "testosterone performance female". Go have a look. And it's absolutely generalizable that a given male athlete will outperform his female equivalent. From what planet are you writing from?
There is a widely cited but bogus Nature editorial (Ainsworth, 2015) where it said that 1 in a hundred people have trouble with the gender binary, citing the article Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. (Arboleda et al., 2014). Actually, that study says this: "Using this inclusive definition, DSDs are estimated to occur in approximately one in 100 live births.8,11 However, the incidence of 46,XY gonadal dysgenesis, in which genetic mutations result in disruption of testis development, is estimated at less than one in 10,000 live births." 1 in a 100 is obtained only with an inclusive definition of DSD (which might include things like being infertile and minimal variations with no phenotypical effects. The statistic is actually *at best* 1 in 10,000. The difference is quite significant. Arboleda cites two articles: Hughes et al. and Lux et al. Hughes mentions: "a strong cross-sex interest in an individual with DSD is not an indication of incorrect gender assignment." That is, not all people with DSD identify as trans or intersex. The same article says: "More than 90% of 46,XX CAH patients [41] and all 46,XY CAIS assigned female in infancy [42] identify as females." Between 90% and 100% aren't!. Lux et al. mentions 0.022%. The same article mentions that almost every diagnostic ocurred on very small sample sizes, so they had to adopt the "inclusive" definition to make the statistics work. Ainsworth: www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943#/b2 Arboleda et al.: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441533/ Hughes et al.: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18947601/ Lux et al.: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19383134/
Here is the source we used if anyone is interested in the definitions or other data! www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128096338065523 -Tiffany :)
I invite everyone to look into the report on trans women in shorts made by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports (CCES). They go over the evidence exhaustively and even-handedly.
@@drunkenhobo8020 You mean the law that prevents employers from firing someone based on their gender? Oh no, targeting minorities for being minorities is illegal? What a _reasonable_ thing to get upset about. 💀 Honey, if you're going to spread lies about my countries laws, and creates victims in your head, you've been lied to. Please at least pretend to understand bill c-16. You actually think the person you're talking to is at risk of jail. It's deeply tragic.
This is such a terrible, low-effort take... Testosterone is not the only reason men have an advantage? Then what happens when someone has testosterone insensitivity? They develop as female in the womb. Testosterone is the cause of all male advantage. The fact that there exist variation is genetic and biological expression is completely meaningless. The norm is the norm and the important thing is the consequence. Being disabled is also a "variation of biology" but do you expect for someone with cerebral palsy to compete against top level male athletes just to be "inclusive"? Stop shoving your ideology and narratives into everything. The issue are not the facts you present, but your interpretation of them. Just make a third category for all the 'other' folks or put them in special olympics. Or is going to be insulting to them? Is that not ableist?
Do you think there are women out there that are your peers, and there are ones that are better than you and will remain better than you regardless how much you train? Or do you think you have the possibility to be better at all sports than all women?
@@Ilamarea In other words "I'd rather be rude and avoid the argument rather than prove I'm sensible." Who needs basic decency when you can have abrasive ignorance? 😅
There are less unknowns than the video would make you believe. Some studies of the advantage have already been published with more coming out. There was a huge case of Caster Semenya at CAS and that was years ago. They already presented some of that data back then.
There are some sports where it just doesn't make sense just on its face: chess, poker, archery, shooting, any motorsport. Like why some chess tournaments are gendered? It doesn't make sense...
Chess is open and women. It's that way to encourage women to play chess competitively without getting trounced by men who are typically more experienced, not because of performance differences.
@@Croz89 Well, chess is a lot about experience and a bit of math... So, to me, if I was asked, it would be all open-mixed. Anyway, it's not like there is a muscle or bone difference that would give an advantage to anyone in chess.
Chess is quite a contentious one. The greatest female chess player - Judit Polgar - is against female-specific titles and a few other female chess players have rejected them. Can't say they make any sense to me either. Although I can understand female-only competitions as a means to encourage women (and especially girls) into playing. But only as a lesser competition to the open, similar to age or Elo classifications. The current Norway Chess event is going to have equal prize money, which is clearly wrong.
@@Sal-T Does the name Jutta Kleinschmidt tells you anything? She won many rally raids including the Dakar in 2001. She even finished 5th in 2016 at the Sealine Cross country rally in Qatar, at 54 years old and in retirement. A middle age retired German enginee driving for a hobby finished before dozens of entrants... Does Shirley Muldowney tell you anything? Three times NHRA world champion. Motorsport isn't really about strength... It's more about how you work with the team to prep the car, and how a driver uses that car on the track. That's why Aston Martin is ready to pay a fortune for Adrian Newey. Archery? I don't see much difference in that sport between sex in that sport. Seems pretty boring regardless of who is shooting. But, in 2010, the record for compound 144 arrow was 1406 out of 1440 and was done by a women. The highest score for a guy was 1394: which, seem pretty similar. That's a marginal difference. The compound 70 m 36 arrows was 351 vs 350 out of a Max of 360: are we really going to bother with 1 point? So I don't see much of a difference there... Similar with shooting.
If you look at single factor differences you can always find a group to fit into differences. But by looking at natural multiple factors like chromosomes and hormone levels along with physical traits of sex organs the group of not clearly men and not clearly women becomes quite small and competition fairness can be established with reasonable clarity. When there is doubt have the athlete compete in the higher class of what they meet the criteria for. This reduces risk to other athletes that don't have the advantages. High level athletic organizations could also add trans/DSD/other classes for natural and transitioning athletes if honesty and fairness are really a concern.
Its hard to create specific tests for certain sports. Most sports have a range of traits that would need to be measured and each test used would have it's weaknesses in how it translate to perform in the sport. This would just be stacking degree of uncertainty on top of each other. The best assessment for you is good at running is getting people to run. You would have just as much risk of having people being wrongly placed into the wrong category due to flaws in the basic assessments. Not to mention you could just lie about your stamina or strength to put into a lower category and then win.
Because then you'd end up with only males in the most "difficult" categories and maybe some females in the lowest difficulties, recreating the segregation feminists fought to dismantle.
go ahead. you will find that gender based violence affects everyone percieved as the gender the attacker wants to attack. I assure u that the women with the intersex conditions that olympics have excluded or almost excluded over get beaten and murdered just the same. Chromosome test are a new thing, for the vast majority of history those were undeniable women on account of their genitals. Maybe infertile women at times, but always women. No peasant in medieval times stopped beating his wife because of a chromosome he didn't even know existed. They were not given male rights for it. They lived the same lives as their mothers ans sisters. And today too we don't chromosome test babies. if the genitals look female that's a girl untill proven otherwise, which in those cases is usually never or untill more test for fertility issues are done. Hell, one of the boxers recently harassed over this shit started boxing because boys in her neighbourhood would harass her. gender based violence is real. But it depends on the perception of the attacker, not a rare chromosomal test. If an man wants to beat his girlfriend he isn't gonna wait for a testosterone and chromosome test before he does so. he is gonna beat her.
women have a right to compete without men. i know that may sound absurd for men like the host of this channel but that`s how it is. our mothers and grandmothers have fought for so long for this that we definitely not willing to got back. deal with it.
Agree. Women’s sport continue to be ‘protected’ only allowing women. As this piece points out how do the organizers determine if a competitor is a woman. Assigned gender at birth? Genitalia? Chromosomes? Hormone levels? What about women like Mokgadi Caster Semenya? I lack the wisdom of Solomon to solve this puzzle. I don’t envy those who have to solve it.
women did not fight for this right, sex testing has always been imposed by men on women who were “too good” leading to their womanhood being questioned
@@marxcherry wrong. surveys show women are in favor for sex testing, because why wouldn`t they? stop with all those lies. we won`t go back and you cheating men have do deal with it. end of story.
Crazy idea: competing based on performance and not gender. 🤔 Let the better athlete win (regardless of gender). Period. Just set performance levels for athletes.
@@ChefJollyRoger can you compete with Michael Phelps? Or is he closer to Katie Ledecky than to you, so you two are further apart than men and women, so one of you is a genetic outlier, and you two should belong to separate categories?
@@NJ-wb1cz standard means average. I am very short at 160cm i will never be able to compete in the nba. Does that mean it is fair for me to use special attachments so i can get to 2m10? No. You live life with cards you are dealt with. Trying to get society to bend to you only makes everyone else worse
@@ChefJollyRoger the thing is the genetic outliers aren't getting stilts either. they are just like that. And the Olympics and average are antithetical. if they're the best their country has to offer they could not be farther from average
I’m sure its great for clicks, but it’s always shitty to crap on the work others have done on a complicated issue without proposing a better solution. Unless of course your solution is to just get rid of seprate womens and mens sports entirely…
We don't pretend to have a solution! Our intent with these videos is to provide education, based on the work others have done, to aid the mainstream conversation on a topic that is often misrepresented. :) -Tiffany
And yet we will go on letting politicians who can barely do basic algebra or spell author legislation governing these issues. Honestly a state or federal surgeon general should have some level of veto power for any proposed bill that directly impacts public health issues at their governing level.
You deliberately ignored this: The drug commonly associated with East German female athletes during the 1970s and 1980s was Oral-Turinabol, an anabolic steroid. It was a central component of the East German state-sponsored doping program, known as State Plan 14.25, aimed at enhancing the performance of athletes, particularly women. Oral-Turinabol, a form of synthetic testosterone, helped increase muscle mass and strength, but it also had severe long-term health consequences for many athletes involved. This systemic doping program led to East German athletes dominating in many international competitions, including the Olympics. So, hormones in athletes make a difference.
As was pointed out, many undoped athletes have naturally high levels of various hormones, sometimes for genetic reasons. But we don't punish those athletes. This video isn't about cheating. It's about natural variation
@@rugbyguy59 If athletes are naturally above the testosterone levels (allowed for females) they are not allowed to compete. That's not a punishment. This video is cynical, it should be skeptical.
I encourage listening to the limited series podcast “Tested” by Rose Eveleth (CBC & NPR), which goes over the 100-year history of sex testing and follows two female athletes affected by these rules.
Maybe go back to presenting data in an unbiased way? Starting a video in a channel that aims at empirical objectivity by saying that sex testing "does not make sense" when it maps onto 99% of cases is quite unscientific. Also, using a possible unfair advantage in the case of a male athlete is not a good example to show it's "not effective" to use biological factors to exclude someone from a women's category, because the male category is the highest one, akin to an "open" category. Also, I don't know how you decided to conduct your research here, but there are plenty of controlled studies out there where testosterone levels were clearly linked with performance levels in both men and women. Just did a quick Google Scholar search with "performance testosterone female" and the examples I could find were quite clear. Interestingly enough, you can also find how "transitioning" does not negate the physical advantages gained during puberty.
It's pretty safe to assume you're making stuff up because you don't understand how hormones affects development, and it's a lie that all trans people are on medication. Gender is more complicated that you think it is. Spreading misinformation so you don't have to engage with actual data will insure your ignorance. ✌
@@eban1127 You didn't understand my comment then. I agree with most of the facts presented. I do not agree with the conclusions. Not the same. Saying that something "does not make sense" is not a statement of fact, but of judgement. I agree that male and female categories (men and women) do not map well on about 1% of people. That is the fact. The conclusion however, is flawed, as it states that an almost perfect model does not make sense, which is obviously contrary to how we usually evaluate models.
Before we can seriously begin addressing sex testing in sports, we need to first work on addressing the factors that have lead to sex segregated sports in the first place. No matter your opinion on sex testing in sports, it is vital to work on the systemic factors that result in the percieved need for sex testing. And doing this work would have huge tangible benefits for women and sports fairness, far beyond anything sex testing could offer. Yes, there may be biological aspects causing differences in performance, however there are far greater issues affecting women's success in sport. From awful funding, to active discrimination, to all sports science research only looking at male athletic needs, there is so much more support needed for women in sports than just keeping them separate from male athletes, and addressing these would have a far greater impact on the success of women than any sex testing regime. If the only thing you are personally doing to promote women in sports is obessing over sex testing, you are not helping women, only furthering divide and reinforcement of discrimination against the very women you claim to wish to protect. (Edited to include additional detail from a reply below. I doubt it will help increase civility in the comments, but I have to assume good faith that those responding weirdly simply have not been given enough context)
Agreed. The conversation likely needs to start with Olympic Skeet Shooting. For those who are not familiar, it was a mixed event but was split into men's and women's after the 1992 Olympics. At the 1992 Olympics, Zhang Shan was the first woman to win the event. IOC claims they had decided to make the split before the 1992 Olympics but just had not announced it until after. Either way, the optics look really bad.
@@cinnamon8884 even if this is the case, then the reasons for the differences need to be looked at. Yes, there may be biological aspects, however there are far greater issues facing women achieving in sport. From awful funding, to active discrimination, to all sports science research only looking at male athletic needs, there is so much more support needed for women in sports than just keeping them separate from male athletes, and addressing these would have a far greater impact on the success of women than any sex testing regime.
Ah I knew you'd have a rational take on this. People trying to impose a binary system on biological systems based on elementary school lessons is infuriating.
Just to be clear, this video in no way contradicts the binary system of male and female, it simply explains how categorizing sports by this metric may not be as effective as we could think. No reasonable biologist (and by reasonable, I mean the 99,9% that agree with their field's scientific consensus) would see as irrelevant to classify individuals using male and female sex categories when that's the reproductive system its species use.
@@gabriyelp it doesn't necessarily correspond to usable reproductive systems when we're talking about outliers, and all top athletes are outliers by definition
@@NJ-wb1cz Not in the reproductive systems sense, no. Most (almost every, like 99%) elite athlete will very easily map onto a basic biological definition of sex. Being an outlier in athletic capabilities is not the same.
Considering the debacle that was people accusing the Algerian boxer of "being a man" in the Paris Olympics when she's a cisgender woman, how there's a history of this kind of baseless accusation, and how the amount of trans athletes winning prizes is basically zero and not even close to the proportion of trans people in the general population, these are not "legitimate concerns". It's not evidence-based, it's stereotype and generalization-based. In other words, it's not science, it's hate and transphobia. If we ever have an actual measurable problem, and not ones invented by tabloids and social media with lies and disinformation, then we can have a talk.
Gene mutation that gives you blood doping, that's an incredible advantage. But these are competions to find the best human specimen so if its natural its all fair imo.
If that was the case, we would've measured them and paraded them and judged the quality of their bodies like we used to in the past in the human markets Modern sports are supposed to be about our achievements and the work and motivation, not objectification of humans as specimen. So it makes no sense that if you happen to be born a woman or 5 foot man then you will never be able to win in swimming regardless the effort you out into training, you will only ever be a middling stepping stone for others. Which is why groups should be made for everyone
@@DtWolfwood no, we get to compete in groups against those we can compete against. This isn't a complicated topic, we've been creating these groups since the dawn of time based on the primitve tools we had to separate people - age, gender, disability. We don't have 5 year olds competing against 20 year olds in boxing, and 70 year olds aren't sprinting against Usain Bolt. Today we have much better extremely precise tools than those superficial ones, so we can group people way better based on the actual capabilities of their bodies
I agree there is no easy answer here. But I think the best place to start is to have two divisions “Open” open to all men, DSD, trans, NB, etc and even cis woman who want to, and then a separate protected “woman’s” division, specifically for what people would consider to be a traditional cis woman, with the various protections we have today, including genetic and hormone testing. That way woman can still have a safe place to perform on a level playing field, and everyone has a division to call their own… But this idea that only woman are tested is crazy. Men are also tested too for performance enhancing drugs, so the gender/ sex testing is just one additional test woman have to go through that the men’s (or hopefully soon “Open”) division doesn’t have…
The thing is that "the one additional test" is a big deal for various of reasons. A big one is that it's ambiguous and the testing criteria has historical been changed to exclude women athletes because they were successful. Theoretical gender testing and performance enchanting drug testing is supposed to stop people from gaming the system. However only one ( the one additional test/ gender testing) is excluding people who are not trying to game the system because of things out of their control. On top of that sex testing from the beginning has been incredibly violating with the genital testing. It's gotten better than that, fortunately, but it my mind it went down the scale of r*pe/extreme dubious consent to verbally sexual harrassment. So yeah, I am seeing the parallels you are trying to make between drug testing and sex testing, however it comes down to the fact that one is weeding out cheaters and the other is weeding out women who don't fit our definition of women. Unfair is a word I would use for that test.
@@Casey-ip7ug I mean I think part of the point of talking about this scientifically is to try to get past the poor historical past of the system. People in the past were operating the best they knew at the time, and were trying to get around what they saw as cheaters. While it's true that many DSD people didn't know their past, particularly those born in poorer countries who haven't had as much medical testing done, is the solution really to let them take over the entire woman's sports world to the exclusion of the other ~4 Billion XX women? What would you propose as the better solution or starting point of a solution?
@@Casey-ip7ug The fact that chosen tests for testing women were made to "exclude successful women" cannot be used as a proof of some kind of unjust discrimination because the point of those tests is exactly to root out unfair advantages, the same advantages that would make an athlete "successful". If the chosen tests work well on 99% of people, it's a good test. Sucks for the 1%, but since it's not something that would exclude you from an essential good or service, it's more than precise enough to be considered fair. It's not like "failing" the test would exclude you from participating in sports, it would only exclude you from a competition in a specific category.
There's nobody looking to create multiple categories That's actually interested in the "safety of women." Woman's safety is absolutely not the issue here, and to continue to give a false argument credit is to be complicit in the other parties dishonesty. There are orders and orders of magnitude more impactful areas where women can be kept safe if that was the actual goal. This has nothing to do with that.
@@Jay-ho9io Safety is clearly implied as a direct result of fairer competitions whether we're talking about sex categories or not, but the actual argument is the one feminists used for decades before this new wave of man-hating pseudo-scientific ideologues : we need women's categories in sports to ensure women's participation at the same level as men. Being able to participate in sports gives you advantages and we should want those advantages to not be reliant of one's sex. Unless of course you do not think women deserve these advantages.
Those were some extreme test back then. Back then. 😂😂😂 Seems today, the exception is the rule, because you want to avoid cancelation and hurting someone's feelings.
You can't say that DSD is "not that uncommon" and then immediately follow up with "it effects one to three percent of the population." Something that only effects 1-3% of the population is the definition of uncommon.
True, but the issue is that some people assume it's /so/ rare that they're never likely to encounter it in their own life. Meanwhile, if you've ever met a natural red-head, you've probably also met someone who falls under the DSD umbrella. Similar ballpark estimate.
In medicine, many conditions affect less than 1 in 100 people. Relative to that, "not that uncommon" is accurate. Also, depending on your prior knowledge/assumptions, it's accurate. You're subjectively right too though, numbers seem silly sometimes. 🤷♂
@@l01230123 That's like saying fewer than 1-100 NASA employees are astronauts. Relative to that, it is not uncommon to work for NASA, which is nonsense. It is uncommon to work for NASA and it is uncommon to have DSD.
@@robisacomedian572 I'm saying you're correct too, but what the doctor said makes sense from my perspective. "Not that uncommon" is pretty vague imo, and we could counter eachother's analogies until the cows come home.
u see if they went by that logic none off the intersex athletes in the news would have had a problem on account of, well, all having " holes" as you put it. that is kind of why their passports and birth certificate say female.
5:38 "And why does that burden largely fall on women" Isn't that obvious? Men's world record for the 100m sprint is 9.58 seconds, women's 10.49 seconds. There might be some women who compete in men's sport for the lulz but they surely won't get any price money. Womens sport is a special privilege for women. I wouldn't mind to get rid of it, just let men compete with intersex and women on a plain playing field.
@@MadScientistsAreJustEngineers Yeah, Zhang Shan famously owned men in Olympic shooting in 1992 that used to allow men and women compete together. After that they separated men from her which allowed them to get the first place once again between just themselves
@@NJ-wb1cz That's kind of dishonest "However, 1992 was the last time women competed against men in this category, as they were barred from the 1996 Olympics-a decision made in April 1992, *prior to the games where Zhang won her gold medal."* - Wikipedia
@@unusefulidiot it's not like it was her first event ever, her performance was known. If you think that's dishonest, name a real sport where women are allowed to dominate men with men both unable to win and also not segregating themselves
If you ask to get a clear definition, it's an adult human female, of course. Then we might argue a little over what "female" or even "adult" means, but for that level of precision, we could just go for the biological definition and be done with it in a few seconds. If you're looking for some phenomenological definition, it could take a while depending of how precise you want it to be. But the second option is useless except in the context of wanting to study how gender roles are constructed in a given society, among a particular culture at a particular time, and we actually never use it except in how we "guess" if someone is a woman or a man without having access to the data we would need to verify if it maps onto the scientific definition.
My opinion is this. I am fine overall with letting people compete.. My issue lies solely in use the government as a means to enforce this. Cause remember all laws are gonna be a set of compromises and no one is gonna be happy with the final result. People on the left and right are gonna have to face some iota of truth you are gonna have to work with the other side to do anything passing laws. Even if you despise and hate them. No side has a complete super-majority and deluding yourself to thinking you can your ideal law is a fool's errand. nNow with that being said there is a way to work on the issue where there can a lot less rigidity in rule making. There is still some political wrangling but there is a benefit of things changing when evidence moves a certain way and rules change with it. Letting the sports governing bodies handle this issue is a better thing than any gov't. Each sport has a body and national body and state body and local body..
The government's role in relation to someone's gender is usually just laws protecting victims in cases of gender-based discriminations. The government isn't directly forcing gender compliance, it acts in response to incidents of alleged discrimination. No one thinks their government is perfect and will always do right by people discriminated against, and it's not their job to define gender, (that's society and individuals) but if it's not their job to care it's easier for people to discriminate without consequences. (Like trying to ban a cis woman from boxing)
@@l01230123 I can agree with your point.. but a lot of rhetoric I've seen from both sides is literally using the gov't as a meanings of enforcing compliance. You should see it. Cause I have. In real life and online there is some people who think the gov't is a be all end all and should be interfering in this issue. I think its more of a culture war battle then a battle of law.. And what scares me than anything is these people will vote for the candidates that be the closest to that agenda.
@@HankScorpio64 Some people have extreme opinions, but there doesn't mean their fears are all unrealistic right? The government can be lifesaving to citizens, or lead to a war. I know things have gotten more divisive lately, (especially in America) but more of that's coming from the far right. The furthest far left ideas I've seen are basically giving money to poor people, and _very_ few take communism seriously, but there's plenty more women's health violations, white nationalist misinformation, etc. on the right. In America, only one side is trying to make the president more powerful and above the law. That's currently the side to be worried about taking too much control. The government's role is to serve and protect people, and putting laws into place is one effective step to doing that.
@@SolitaryReaper666 Wow, that's so eloquent and not at all bigoted! I saw a trans woman today on RUclips, like how dare she exist in a conversation?? WOKE!! 💀
There are a lot of inaccuracies in this video. The fact is there is no complication with biological sex. As for using the expression "constant state" to say there is none in the sexes is a straw man argument. The expression "constant state" doesn't fit well when discussing biological sexes, especially in the context of human development and variation. Biological sex is not a static or unchanging condition throughout a person's life. From birth, various biological factors such as hormone levels, secondary sexual characteristics, and reproductive abilities can fluctuate or develop over time, making sex not entirely constant in all its expressions. While the basic chromosomal determination of biological sex (e.g., XX or XY) remains constant, the overall expression of biological sex characteristics is subject to natural variation across a lifetime. Biological sex, is not inherently a continuum as is implied here because there are clear reproductive roles tied to male and female biology. The rare cases (yes, it is rare) of intersex individuals or variations in sex development don’t constitute a full spectrum in the same way, for instance, that skin tone or height form natural gradients in populations. The key point is that these variations, while part of the biological reality, don't erase the fundamental categories of male and female, which are defined by reproductive biology and not by individual psychological needs or medical interventions. Conflating the psychological need for gender identity recognition with biological sex creates confusion. People might discuss sex and gender interchangeably, but they are different: sex is biological, rooted in chromosomes and reproductive function, while gender identity is more about personal and social identity. While society increasingly acknowledges a range of gender identities, that doesn’t change the fact that biological sex remains a binary for the vast majority of the population, grounded in natural reproductive roles. The estimates of the prevalence of intersex traits (ranging from 0.02% to 1.7%) come from various studies conducted by medical researchers, endocrinologists, and geneticists. The lower estimates (around 0.02% to 0.05%) are based on narrower definitions of intersex conditions, focusing on cases where there is clear ambiguity in genitalia or other physical traits observable at birth. For example: Leonard Sax (2002): In his critique of Fausto-Sterling’s estimates, Sax argued that a more restrictive definition of intersex, based on clinically significant conditions such as ambiguous genitalia at birth, places the prevalence closer to 0.018%. Brown University and NIH Research: These studies often look at genetic conditions that lead to non-standard chromosomal patterns (e.g., XXY, XO) or differences in hormone production, but only a small fraction of these result in observable physical characteristics. The higher-end estimate of 1.7% is often attributed to the work of Anne Fausto-Sterling, a biologist and gender studies scholar. In her article “The Five Sexes, Revisited” (2000), she provided this estimate by including a broad spectrum of intersex conditions, such as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), and others. Her definition of intersex covers a range of conditions that might not be immediately visible or apparent without medical investigation. There is so much erroneous conflation here that it borders on complete ignorance: Intersex women with higher testosterone levels could have a performance edge over non-intersex women in certain sports, depending on how effectively their bodies use testosterone. However, this advantage is context-dependent, and sports governing bodies have established rules to maintain fairness in competition by regulating testosterone levels among female athletes. The question of whether intersex women with higher testosterone levels have an unfair advantage in sports has led to regulations by international sporting bodies. For example, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and World Athletics have set testosterone limits for female athletes in certain sports. Athletes with testosterone levels above a certain threshold are required to lower their testosterone through medical treatment if they wish to compete in women’s events.
A very measured presentation of the difficulties surrounding the topic. On top of everything you've already presented, the other real issue complicating things is that we're not just dealing with the normal population. We're dealing with the most extreme, highest performing humans that have likely ever been born and trained for freakish levels of physical performance. Genetic factors, epigenetic factors, the random mutations you mentioned, etc., all are going to be abnormally represented in Olympians over the general population.
This will get thornier and thornier as our understanding of those factors in relation to physical performance gets better. The argument to absurdity is that we're headed for Gattaca or Eugenics-like arguments creeping in, and defining "Genetic Classes" (ala weight classes) to better organize people into their peer groups for proper competition. Forget messy classifications of "Man" and "Woman", it might get a lot worse and even more contentious.
I clicked on this thinking it would be about testing how much sex athletes have and STIs testing during competitions or something along those lines 😅
No, it's about testing their performance in sex for the new kinds of sports.
It's actually pretty tricky to develop a scoring system and determine the winnner
@@NJ-wb1cz In this instance, I suggest, 'Its not the winning, its the taking part' 🤔
I'm sure the comments section will be very level-headed and facts-oriented.
Why should the comments be better than the video?
@@unusefulidiotat least your username is fitting
@@unusefulidiot Why should my asinine question waste your time? 🤔
I wish the video was!
@@Danyel615 What was specifically wrong with any portion of the video. And what are your sources for declaring it wrong?
Agree with everything but I think a nuance that’s often missed, is that olympians are already at the extreme of many of these scales. They are, by definition, exceptional, not normal people. You typically expect and DO find extreme variances in traits like muscle mass, hormones, etc even in those who WITHOUT intersex traits just by the nature of “selecting the athletes.” It muddies the water even more, so much so that the already shaky belief that men and women are easily defined and separated…… completely collapses.
It does not. Just look at the top women's olympic swim numbers vs the bottom men's numbers.
Category differences exist. No human can run as fast as an (able-bodied) cheetah, because there are fundamental differences between our physiology. While it is absolutely true that athletes exist on the extreme end of the performance distribution for their sex, it does not follow that this muddies the performance differences between sexes. Which is evident from records. To put it in statistics terms, sex produces bimodal distributions in performance - in bipodal distributions, the 99th percentiles do not typically overlap.
It's worth stressing that intersex conditions _do not_ offer advantages in male sports. If the distribution were truly muddied, you'd expect to see successful intersex athletes in male sports - you don't. What you're essentially seeing is the equivalent of humans running against disabled cheetah - which winds up making the whole contest more about just how disabled the cheetah really is, than individual athlete performance, because the category advantage offered by _being a cheetah_ is so huge.
It's also worth noting how _insanely rare_ some of these conditions are. There have only been a few hundred reported cases of 5-ARD (which Caster Semenya has), in the world. The very fact that somebody with this condition ended up winning gold at the olympics demonstrates the power of sex advantages and selection effects.
That's such a dumb, pseudo-intellectual take it's ridiculous. It's like people writing fanfiction for reality.
You’ve got this completely in reverse. If anything, the high levels of training exacerbate the advantages that males have over females.
@@gascogne really?... How much training do you need to best all women in, say, archery to showcase your male advantage?
Well, many sports have an open and women's divisions, so men aren't scrutinized in these cases.
Men are also not scrutinized for sex or gender because being a trans-man puts you at a disadvantage in men's sports. The fact of the matter is that trans people could possibly have an effect on women's sports, so those who want to compete as women will bear most of the burden for showing it.
nuance!!! thanks for this, healthcare triage. being this informative and data-driven and easy to follow is something i really value from this channel. best wishes!
3:55 The effects of extra testosterone in women might not have been investigated separately, but isn't it reasonable to assume that more testosteron leads to more muscle growth? After all, isn't that why anabolic steroids are effective, because they increase testosterone? I fully agree that there are a lot of unknowns still, but there are things we do know and until proper testing has been done we can make certain assumptions, i.e. testosterone increases muscle growth. And some of the results of the last olympics do confirm those assumptions.
The "we don't know" thing is bordering on being a lie, while there is a lot we don't know, we have a pretty good understanding on how testosterone improves sports performance.
Anabolic steroids increase testosterone into many thousands while natural testosterone levels of a professional male athlete can be like 300-400. There is no direct correlation between testosterone levels and performance if you actually measure both, the relationship is way more complicated than just higher numbers equal better performance.
You can easily happen to have natural testosterone up in 900-1000 range yet all it will do is make you bald and whiny and angy. And a dude with 300 will run circles around you
I mean, high testosterone levels are considered a medical issue in women for a reason. They can cause lots and lots of negative side effects .
I would know ! I have to take testosterone blockers ! I don't even have high testosterone levels, I have a high testosterone sensitivity making my body react like I have way more testosterone than I actually do. And sports leagues don't even test for sensitivity as far as I know so they are only ever testing one half of the equation to begin with!
like by god, people are out here acting like some naturally high testosterone will make a woman into a sports machine while I'm taking tetsosterone blockers cause it made my Period a mess of up to 2 weeks with pain that made it hard to use my legs and occasionally caused anemia , absolutely fucked up my blood sugar and made me gain a lot of fat. things that would absolutely suck for an athlete.
It's not even like high testosterone levels are rare! hyperandrogenism is way more common that what that olympic skier had going on. As in even the first paragraph of the wikipedia page will tell u that about 5% of women have it.
and again, that's not even taking into account hormone sensitivity which is a huge factor in all of this too. complete androgen insensitivity syndrome is an intersex condition where someone with XY chromosome develops female anyway because they are completely insensitive to testosterone and thus their bodies while developing in the womb miss the signals to develop male and just develop as female instead. you can call them Genetically male all you want but chromosome tests are a new thing so for most of history those were just infertile women with unusually little body hair. As for modern sports, you can do a chromosome test on them and say they don't belong in women's sports, but they aren't exactly getting any benefits from the tesosterone their body entirely ignores.
that is of course an extreme example, but what i want to get at is that a hormone level alone is very incomplete information.
I naturally have hairier legs than most men I know unmedicated, but I'd pass those hormone tests just fine unmedicated too. Those tests aren't even good enough to test how much testosterone is doing for women !
It really is not as clear cut as people who have never even talked to an endocrinologist would like you to believe.
The highest frequency estimate I found for DSD was 1 in 5000 when searching the web. Which page of the reference manual in life sciences was your 1-3% figure found on? I wish to evaluate what research that work is referencing, as I suspect an error.
Here is the source we used! www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128096338065523 -Tiffany :)
Many high end Olympians have some sort of physical advantage over their peers. Michael Phelps, for example, has especially long arms and legs, and has ankles that flex further than others, giving him a flipper like effect for his swimming.
Yes, but to use your example if you compare the very best swimming results ever in the women's division they wouldn't even be in the top 20 of the men's division.
Gender differences in sport exist for the same reason that many sports have weight classes. Not to hold people back from competing but to allow more people to be rewarded for the talent they show amongst their peers. If they didn't exist most sports that favor the traits of men or women would be dominated but one of the two.
Which is why every sport should have groups and gradations. Not based on gender per se, but on whatever innate human characteristics are the defining and relevant in that sport
It is in fact ridiculous that you will never ever become good at swimming regardless how much you train and regardless how driven and willing you are. So what are we even doing then and why?... Sports are supposed to be about human spirit and achievement, not genetic competition like dog shows where weird specimen are fighting for our amusement
@@NJ-wb1cz you just can't do a gradation to that extent. Even weight classes are slightly too much given how many there are and they top out at a certain time.
phelps has nothing to do from letting men competing with women aqnd let them rob their medals.
@@neosovereign why? Every sport defines just fine what the proper parameters can be, what can be allowed to be taken, what can be used to treat particular diseases by particular people and what can't be. We already do extremely complicated slicing of allowable bodies and what a particular person is allowed to do to their body, but what they are allowed to do isn't necessarily what another person is allowed to do.
The categories already exist, but they are ethereal, extremely niche, and exclude the vast majority of people anyway. Typically the groups are organized just so that one group is selected to be above others that can be changed arbitrarily at any time, and that's just silly
Fundamentally, the problem is creating a "easy class" always means that competitors will forever be trying to get into that easier class. Have you ever seen what combat-sports enthusiasts will do to "cut weight" and make it down a weight class? It was an annual ritual when I was in highschool with the wrestlers: you knew it was wrestling season because they were all in sweat shirts and two or three layers of pants and carrying bottles to spit in and eating one bite from each thing at lunch and on and on, all in the hopes of not having to wrestle someone five pounds heavier that was doing the exact same thing to get down for the exact same reason. And when I did Kung Fu, my teacher was very certain that measuring arm and leg length would mean more than measuring weight in stand-up fighting, but that weight was a good enough proxy for that not to be worth rocking the boat.
Whenever we create a class of "easier" sports in the name of fairness, there will always be people just on the cusp that feel like it's unfair. It doesn't matter how we divide it up. The only way we can get around that is to have no divisions at all. You mentioned the skier that is respected for his mutation: he's also competing in the "highest level," not a level specifically created to protect those with natural disadvantages. He has a helpful mutation, but he's not trying to cut weight to compete against someone five pounds lighter just so he can have an easier competition.
I'm not saying that these are bad, but we do need to carefully consider what we are trying to protect and what we see as unfair that leads to creating these categories in the first place. Weight classes exist for a very simple reason: without them, all the winners will be 350 lbs or more, and that's got more to do with physics than skill. If we abolish women's classes, what will happen? If that's unfair, why? This will, of course, vary by sport. After doing martial arts for 20 years, I'm not entirely convinced that mixed-gender martial arts with a minor adjustment on weight class based on hormone levels is entirely unfair. Probably will have to measure more than just T, but T might be a good enough proxy for the rest to just do that. It will probably take a little study to do a "this much T means add this much to the weight" chart, but I think we could do that.
@@ShaunCKennedyAuthor with fighting there are cultural and historical problems with making women fight men, even if they will fight femboys that are similar to them in most ways. I think that's not a place to start
What we could do, is say, add classes in cycling. First based on weight because it's intuitively obvious that someone weighing 400 lbs probably won't perform like Froome. Then start further honing in on what makes some people fundamentally better than others. And then gender will probably slide into this semi-automatically at some point when we realise that we don't really need to separate men and women for most classes anymore because we already accounted for their differences by testing them
the women in the olympics are also competing at the top of their dicipline and they aren't cutting pounds by competing with their bodies as they natually are. heck, that is what the olympics wants to force them to in some cases! Semenya, an olympic runner, has naturally high testosterone due to a medical condition. And to compete again the olympics asked her to take medication to reduce the natural testosterone levels of her body. She refused, so she hasn't competed again since.
the Women's olympics isn't the " easy" league for women it's the fucking highest one there is for them And they aren't trying to sneak their way into it through contorting their bodies in these cases. their bodies are just naturally like that. In what way are they trying to game the system with a medical condition they were born with ???
Yeah the women don't have a "no medical conditions" allowed league to fall back on but neither do men. they both have to face that their league is gonna have people that have some physical advantages. be it a medical condition or just being taller and having eyesight that is way better the average.
@@keitoimon Are you suggesting that we eliminate women's divisions altogether? If so, how is that different from my solution?
Thanks!
Hey thanks!
I think maybe best way of solving this is going the way of the paralympics, with classifications. Variance is simply too great across a range of factors to have generic classifications. (Well, it works sort of, but the amount of outliers is only going to increase as people who were previously socially excluded from sport are more welcome)
But perhaps no one would agree on those classifications either.
The issue is, there will always be edge cases regardless. Many of them are ignored because they do not impact results of competition, but when they do, its very hard to decide what is a 'natural' advantage vs an 'unfair' one.
The video misleads at 2:47 with a controversial stat saying 1-3% of people have a DSD.
When we're thinking about genetic tests for women's sports, the **relevant** DSDs are XX males and XY females. Those are the conditions for which an XX chromosomal test for females would give us a false positive (XX male) and a false negative (XY female).
But those conditions are very, very rare! XX males have an incidence of about .004%. XY females have an incidence of about .00125% - .02%. You can Google those syndromes to verify those stats.
So, despite this video's attempt to make biological sex as complicated as possible, these easy genetic tests would have a low error rate, and therefore be a pretty simple way to make sure only females compete in female sports.
(Also, let me preempt a possible misreading: I do not think biological sex is defined by chromosomes. The two sexes--male and female--are defined in terms of functions to produce either large or small gametes. And, of course, functions may not be realized! A male may malfunction, and not produce any small gametes, just as a toaster may malfunction and not produce any toast, or a kidney may malfunction and not filter waste.)
How do you know those are the only "relevant" DSDs though?
@@omazingbobb1671 If sports are segregated by males and females, and we check for XX sex chromosomes to sort males from females, the only false positives will be males with XX chromosomes, and the only false negatives will be females with XY chromosomes. Those are very rare conditions, so this is a pretty good test to help sort the males from the females. No?
@@omazingbobb1671 If we want a female division in sports, then we'd like a test that could distinguish males from females. Testing for XX chromosomes would yield false positives only in the case of XX males, and false negatives only in the case of XY females. These are both very, very rare conditions, so it's a pretty good test!
Of course, our genetic test would disclose other chromosomal arrangements as well, e.g. XXY, or XO, etc. But my understanding is that, in such cases (which are also very rare!), it's pretty well established whether the individual is male or female. For example, the Mayo Clinic says this about XXY: "Klinefelter syndrome is a genetic condition that results when a boy is born with an extra copy of the X chromosome."
@@tbogardus1 if you really wanted to be sure, you could test for specific markers on the SRY gene. No SRY gene, be it on the Y chromosome or anywhere else, definitely biologically female.
@omazingbobb1671 If we want a female division in sports, then we'd like a test that could distinguish males from females. Testing for XX chromosomes would yield false positives only in the case of XX males, and false negatives only in the case of XY females. These are both very, very rare conditions, so it's a pretty good test!
Of course, our genetic test would disclose other chromosomal arrangements as well, e.g. XXY, or XO, etc. But my understanding is that, in such cases (which are also very rare!), it's pretty well established whether the individual is male or female. For example, the Mayo Clinic says this about XXY: "Klinefelter syndrome is a genetic condition that results when a boy is born with an extra copy of the X chromosome."
If there are no clear testable biological criteria that identify someone as having an unfair advantage in women's sports, does it even make sense to have it as a separate category at all? Why not just have everyone, regardless of gender or sex assigned at birth, compete together on equal footing?
Because in most sports that would mean the overwhelming majority of winners would be male.
Because then the lies and obfuscations about the reality of sex would become apparent, once only men win all competitions.
There are, and they have existed for decades. It's only in the last few years it's become popular to ignore them.
Great question.
So, no sports for the 99.9999% of people because they aren't enough of a mutant by definition?
What's the goal of such competition, find the weirdest human bodies honed for specific weird activities we make up to send to some alien overlords or something?
We can probably learn to do that even without engaging in any sports. Just check the genes of everyone on the planet and proclaim who's the superior creature with better genes
If there are no consistent scientific or medical differences between men and women, then what is the justification for having separate classes and competitions for men and women? Why not just have one competition for everyone?
And if your answer to that is that men would then win most competitions to the consistent exclusion of women, maybe consider why that might be, and whether you might want to reconsider the assumption that there are no consistent differences between men and women as demographic classes.
I'll believe that you're serious about the claim that there are no differences between men and women when you start advocating for the abolition of sex segregation in competitive Olympic sports.
the video never stated that there were no differences. just that there can be nuanced gray areas.
e.g. Why would you exclude a woman who naturally produces more of a hormone that might help her in her sport but not a man who does the same ? Why is natural variance a sign of excellence in men but a horror story in women?
like by god, the testosterone tests don't even paint a full picture. I am a cis woman with no intersex condition whatsoever and XX chromosomes that would pass a testosterone test just fine. But I have to take testosterone blockers because I am overly sensitive to it so my body can go way way farther with the same amount of testosterone and I'd prefer to not deal with a mustache or the medical complications that too much testosterone causes.
Testing testosterone is only one half, the other is sensitivity.
there is is no perfect system.
I actually do think some sports could be desegregated ( e.g. shooting, chess) but not all. that said, if you want to segregrate you'll have to deal with fringe cases and gray areas and pretending like it's all black and white isn't gonna help anyone.
as I said: take me as an example. I would pass the tests. there is no one and done test for testosterone sensitivity as far as I am aware, my doctor had to do months of observation and medication adjustments to check. I would still have enough testosterone to grow a mustache and I could lift my teachers in elementary school.
In a man being able to go far with an average testosterone level would be seen as natural variance and a sign of excellence. They'd write about how he was perfectly made for his sport ! A man being better than average is always humanity's best !
What do you think they'd write about someone like me, as woman by every definition of the word? As far as I can tell by how they've treated athletes so far they'd start cospiracy theories about men sneaking into sports and try to find some way to exclude her, because a woman being "better" than the average must always be brought down for " fairness" .
There are always gonna be fringe cases and gray areas. that does not mean there is no distinction. it just means maybe we should start acknowlegeing that we as a society don't only have different sports leagues for men and women but also very different standards. And the ones for women are much much more restrictive.
I for one think we should give women the same treatment as men when they by natural variance have an advantage for their sport instead of harassing them about it.
@@keitoimon You failed to explain why you think that most sports that aren't like chess or shooting should remain segregated. That's my point. The reason why we have sex segregated sports is the exact same reason why we need mechanisms to objectively determine who qualifies for which class. Either get on board with desegregated sports, or accept that there needs to be consistent standards for competition that necessarily exclude some people from some categories for the sake of fairness. To reject both is hypocrisy or ignorance.
Because men didn't want to be beaten by women, who were beginning to catch up to them in sports competitions and challenge the assertion that men are better than women. That's it. There never was a "scientific" or "medical" reason for it. Women's sports were invented to _sideline_ woman athletes, not to benefit them.
IMO the US education system fails with this basic biology so much.. Thanks for covering such an easy topic to understand with basic Googling, but it's SO politicized people don't do it..
This video purposefully makes the issue seem more muddied than it actually is. Firstly, the 1-3% stat of those with DSDs is both inflated and meaningless in this context, because it includes Karyotype disorders which have no effect whatever on sex determination (e.g. Klinefelter's and Turners) and the most DSDs are disabling (relative to being an elite athlete, at least). There also isn't a single DSD which offers an advantage in male sports - so I suspect the number of athletes in male events with DSDs is close to 0.
More significantly, we know which DSDs are likely to offer male athletic advantage and which wouldn't - if it's a DSD which means you were exposed to high levels of androgens during development, you should expect that person to have male athletic advantage. So if you have CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), you're likely fine to compete. If you have 5-ARD (which means you have internal testes) you aren't. While it's true Karyotype doesn't tell you everything, it's still well within the reach of medical science, if (and you'll pardon the pun), sporting bodies have the balls to be rigorous.
It should also be stressed that sex differences in performance, especially for upper body strength, _are not small_ , it's on the order of 175% by most metrics. It's a category difference. If an athlete has a DSD conferring male sex advantage and is competing in a sport where upper body strength is crucial, then that is very likely to swing the result. It's not an edge factor.
It's not that hard.
Which sport are you talking about?
I'm sure this comments section will be extremely cordial /s.
In all seriousness, kudos for tackling this topic, and I appreciate the way you present it. There's a robust debate to be had about how to structure women's sports. But any delineation needs to acknowledge the reality that biological sex is not as well-defined as we'd like to think.
It seems to me like it would be far better to separate people in sports not by their biological sex but by capability classes - kind of like weight classes in boxing, or how starting positions are determined in some racing sports. This would allow people to compete with others who are at a similar level in their sport and make competition fairer, fiercer, and more interesting.
Well, some sports do have age categories for masters athletes. Since I have tested anemic for decades, I should definitely have an-old-anemic-guy category.
if you seperate them by wight, the men will win like the two dsd-men during the last olympics. men can hit way harder than women. it`s actually incredibly dangerous to allow men to beat up women, that`s why the italian boxer stoped the fight after the first few seconds. there was no way she could win but a high risk to get severly injured or even killed. it`s madness.
This is pretty much how the paralympics handles it.
This is a masterclass on how to use nuance and uncertainty to cast doubt on one of the most well established human dimorphisms, which informs the most common sense rule of sex separation in sport.
All this doubt only jeopardises womens sports.
Thumbs down doctor. You let your progressivism and intelligence carry you away to a bad take.
I always found the Olympics such a funny topic. When considering the number of humans, how high the variations can be, and then considering the olympics specifically filters for the extremes of the extremes, having those arbitrary rules makes the people who take it so seriously look like they're clowning around for some laughs.
Yeah, you could consider it to be fine before this modern era where almost anyone has a chance to compete, and before everyone had access to the more advanced technologies that allow us to understand and manipulate our bodies, but now, with all the things we know about hormones, genetics, and all the cutting edge biomechanical engineering, kinesiology etc., when we know that we have the ability to actually push human bodies to extremes and rules after rules are put in place just to prevent specific people from competing in some events, having different competitions that run alongside the main ones that only allow certain types of people that fit certain criteria of performance disadvantages, rules in place of what kind of preparation the competitors are allowed to undergo with discussions of if the advantages come from chance or active interventions like in the guy with the RBC count mutation, it really does seem like a big funny joke at the end of the day that should really not be taken so seriously by so many people.
splitting cathegories by sex isn`t extreme - wtf are you even talking about????
We’re just saying that men shouldn’t compete with women dude
Biological differences between sexes are already significant at the local junior amateur level, not only the Olympics, so the debate is quite relevant for millions of sports practitioners around the globe. Even with the best technologies currently at our disposal, there is no way to get a population of female athletes to compete at the same level of a population of male athletes, all other variables being equal.
@@gabriyelp biological differences between genders are smaller than other biological differences between people, as evidenced by most people including you and I being biologically less performant than the top women athletes, and thus being unable to train up to a level of beating their records. You keep bringing up biological differences but immediately move on from them the moment the fact of your own biology and your own biological inferiority compared to the top female athletes is brought up
So if we actually want to separate people based on real biological capacity, we would use better tests of metabolism, vascular system, skeletal system, etc that actually find out who gets an advantage in a particular sport. And that would actually be a great idea that would spread the groups over much larger amount of people, and would be way more inclusive for absolutely everyone regardless what gender they identify as
Here's a take it didn't think about very hard so totally willing to admit if I overlooked something obvious. But for high level competition would it be so bad to have no separation of genders? Like maybe on something like a local level you can divide things up however you see fit. But the second someone attempts to compete on the national or international stage they're all thrown together to fight for true dominance in their field
There's no such thing and no serious sports competition currently works that way.
For example, true dominance in cycling few decades ago included drinking wine and smoking while competing in Tour de France. Now it includes huffing salbutamol like you're dying from an asthma attack. Later it will include something else. Rules change, equipment changes, preparation changes, diets change, training changes, techniques change, chemistry changes, etc.
All competition only ever shows who was better among some particular people at a particular time doing particular things
And, like, we understand just fine that it's absurd to see who dominates boxing between a 120 lbs lightweight and a 250 lbs heavyweight - these are essentially different sports, with different techniques. It's like trying to see who would "dominate" when one person plays basketball while another plays volleyball.
And yet, we just kinda accepted that you can only cycle if you have a body type of a skeletor. Other body types - nope, you can't, no categories for you. It's pointless to develop your own techniques that better use your body, you can't use any advantages your body provides, you just have to try to win at volleyball against people playing basketball, fail, and that's it. And this is how the relationship with sport goes for the vast majority of people - they aren't suitable for it because there is no category for them
That is the actual problem. We routinely make people compete in ways that don't make any sense, and somehow deem this "fair". We may as well create a sport just for 11 fingered people because that's essentially what all our sports competitions are, and elite athletes are actually much more rare than people with 6 fingers on one hand
That’s how it was for centuries, and if we made it that way today, it would simply shake out to be “only men” for any sports that are mostly speed, strength, or stamina. There would of course be competitive female archers and curlers and the like, but it would be hugely lopsided.
As another commenter pointed out, we have decided as a culture that we WANT to have a class for women, and any time we create such an “easier” class, there will always be people trying to get into that class who don’t belong.
Overall, in the opinion of many (including myself), the benefit of giving women a class to compete in is greater than the cost of the imperfect administration which can never be perfect.
I believe that the reason why women's sports comes under such scrutiny is because of the fact that women's sports in general is less competitive than men's sports and the latter tends to almost represent an "open" category if you will that regardless of identity anyone who is good enough can compete. Looking at running statistics we can see how potentially some men may try to take advantage of the women's sport system to obtain some gain which is why the transgender women in sports has become such a contentious issue.
Excellent! Glad to hear some nuance and reasoning behind all this (or lack thereof for some)
We also require a certain sense of physical fitness. Arguing for the exception of the rule in gender is like arguing for different types of anemia/thalasemia, showing a spectrum and saying that “it’s more complex”. There are certain types of anemia and thalasemia that does not disqualify someone’s physical fitness and others that can be detrimental. One can say the same for DSDs. While we may not have the data, the use of the EPO gene mutation as an example may actually prove my point. If we find that more athletes who are winning have this gene mutation, then we should also allow for those who don’t have this mutation to be allowed to dope. Or we should disqualify unfortunately those who do have EPO mutation because of doping laws. There needs to be a philosophical consistency in these sports. One can eventually ask because of the apparent absurdity of these questions, well what’s the point of spectator sports anyway? Maybe we shouldn’t even bother trying to make a living out of them and not make it spectator anymore but only private so that the people who compete compete for the right reasons, and thus the philosophy of sporting becomes much clearer than the bias of spectator salary, I mean “funding.”
I think the best compromise for now is testosterone levels. Yes, some biological women have high T, but it's still significantly lower than the lower threshold for healthy biological men. We're still dealing with two peaks. Is it perfect? No, but it's probably the best option we have. We can't just tear down gender segregation in sports, anything requiring athletic ability bio men will utterly dominate.
And I also don't think it's reasonable to throw out the biological sex binary because of a few DSD anomalies. The majority of these are minor, so minor that many people don't even notice them. They don't make much of a difference to their role in reproduction which is fundamentally what defines biological sex.
Completely agree, tired of people pretending ginger is a real hair color
@@marxcherryPlease don't tell me you're using that debunked argument. Please no...
What's the point of using gender at all if we are going to measure the particular body of a particular person? Once you deem it necessary to do a detailed testosterone test to determine the categories for everyone, there's no reason not to do a dozen or two other tests to more granularly determine what are the capabilities of a particular person in a particular sport. We have AI now, we can easily do the model training and analysis, and separate people into groups based on their predicted bodily performance
@@NJ-wb1cz Because there would be dozens if not hundreds of categories, all different for each sport, it would be unworkable. Biological sex is by far the biggest factor in differences of performance over all athletic sports, the gap is often enormous.
@@Croz89 why? There are dozens if not hundreds of possible biological differences between genders and we collapse them to just two made up categories just fine. So if we want two - we can make two based on actual ability. If we want 3 or 5 - we can make 3 or 5. If we want dozens for some reason - that's also possible but I doubt we would want that.
How often do you see men with huge man ummm "breasts" that require a bra succesfully becoming their nations sprint champions? Do you think it's fair to them to impose a category on them where they are effectively banned from ever dreaing about winning in a sport because we deem that their set of biological gender characteristics must provide them a huge advantage yet in reality it doesn't?
Considering the reports from the Olympic village, sex testing probably makes sense, to make sure beforehand that you don't suck at it.
Hey, you can do all sort of things while you're at it as long as it's consensual
@@NJ-wb1cz Agreed, sucking can be fine.
I am friendly with some retired world-class female athletes, whose main problem relates to trans women competing, more than intersex athletes. I certainly am not going to tell them how to think about this issue. But the fact (which you acknowledged) that women have historically had a very rough time finding an equal footing with men in sports says to me that the feelings and opinions of those athletes need to be taken seriously.
They have a problem with trans athletes, but how many have they actually competed and lost to? Spoilers, there are very few, and they don't tend to win. Look at they Olympics for an example.
You can't use the history of sexism as an excuse to gatekeep women based on your feelings and not actual performance. Women are women, if they want to compete together that's fine, if they can't tolerate other women that's their misogyny.
@@l01230123 I certainly don't think I get to make that call one way or another. This has shown up in FB postings about actual competitions, by athletes that no longer compete. If you choose to call this misogyny, go right ahead.
@@l01230123 at which number does it matter? isn`t one already too many? also: look up statistics - there are websites that list trans identified males who stole their medals from women. spoiler: it`s not just a few it`s hundrets including sponsorships, etc...
the problem is not competing with other women, the problem is men entering our sports and stealing our medals because they can`t score against other males.
@@cinnamon8884 Provide me any source or amount of evidence that this is an actual issue and I'd have zero reason to doubt you.
Until you can prove that trans women are causing problems, you need more than you feelings about medals being stolen.
Here's a question for you, when Brazil won a women's soccer tournament with a trans teammate, does it bother you that she still wasn't the best player? In your view this situation should be impossible or unlikely, but the only lists I can find of trans women doing well in sports include sports like snooker, team sports, and a lot of runner-up medals.
@@StevenBornfeld I didn't think it was any of our calls. Yeah, there's a lot of transphobia in sports, about as much as there is homophobia, and Facebook is a breeding ground for misinformation and political divisions. It's misogyny, transphobia, cauvanism, bigotry, ignorance: it's a lot of things, but whatever it's most accurately, it isn't based in science.
Low-T category ✊
You're assuming that the people whining about this are using good faith arguments and not emotional "that makes me go ick so it must be bad wrong evil" arguments. None of your logical objections will affect them at all.
I would like to give at least some of these people more credit. When you talk to these people, their thought processes involve both emotion and faulty beliefs.
Providing them with better scientific knowledge doesn't guarantee they're going to change their mind, let alone right away. But it's still a good thing to do. I've often changed my mind based on new information, but rarely on the spot.
@@IronMongoose1And it's often not a binary - personally I've come to be supportive of the lgbt community in many areas, but still felt like there was some point to be made about trans athletes in professional sport. I could see the nasty way that many people speak about this issue, but couldn't refute the logic of what they were saying.
All of his “logical objections” are wrong and you’re strawmanning the opposition
Perefect case in point, you delusional twit.
Yes I find MVAW makes me go "ick". Is that bad?
Is there any good data on the assumption that "Men", as traditionally defined as we've seen the supposed biological definition is pretty crap, out perform "Women" in athletics in any real generalizable way? Controlled for weight class, economics/nationality, or background (AMAB bodies being encouraged toward sport at a young age as opposed to AFAB) how universal is this? Does it apply across sport? In other words does female only athletics actually have backing beyond a cultural assumption of male physical superiority?
I have certainly heard unverified claims that female exclusion from sport in many cases initiated in women out performing men and immediately being excluded or creating a womans version. (shooting competitions were mentioned around this most recent Olympics).
I'm asking after actual study of the subject not some guys back of napkin math looking at records on wikipedia.
If you control for everything you will select identical bodies by definition.
Gender can be a rough approximation of the baseline like age or weight. So it's like saying, if you control for everything, can you prove that 5 year olds are weaker than 10 year olds? Well, no, you can find identical people some of whom are 5 and some are 10, and thus deem that age doesn't matter in itself.
And it doesn't, but we use it as a proxy to guess the rest of parameters as a statistical probability because we couldn't measure them reliably before. Generally speaking, 10 year olds will be stronger than 5 year olds, and generally speaking men will be stronger than women. But of course, there are many women that can absolutely crush me personally :)
Well yeah... A quick Google Scholar search will give you plenty of good examples of controlled studies where differences between males and females are significant in many different athletic and sports activities. Archery and shooting are very specific examples that do not seem to use biological systems where these sex differences appear, but they are by far exceptions.
And sex is easily defined in biological terms. It's more about finding the actually relevant biological factors for sports, which are quite strongly related to sexes in biological terms, but not as precisely as we would want in the spirit of fairness in sports.
And just in case it wasn't clear, it was always meant for "men" and "women" in sports to actually mean "male" and "female", but lately, it seems that some people wanted to ascribe linguistics terms or pseudopsychology to biology, but hey, we don't need to have this debate to discuss the idea of creating distinct categories based on biological factors.
@@gabriyelp no, there aren't. You are a man, and it's statistically unlikely for you to outperform women in a generalizable way, and it's unlikely that you can get better than all women at all sports even with the best training
Meaning, there are much bigger differences in performance between other categories that aren't genders. Your male advantage is dwarfed by other advantages other people have over you.
Which means if we're making categories to make competition fair, it makes no sense to use just this lesser factor and ignore the actually defining ones that can actually predict if some particular person can feasibly compete with another particular person or not.
@@NJ-wb1cz What the hell are you babbling about? Did you even try to do the said Google Scholar search? I'm looking at it right now. "testosterone performance female". Go have a look.
And it's absolutely generalizable that a given male athlete will outperform his female equivalent. From what planet are you writing from?
just look at olympic records in men vs. women, it`s not that hard actually unless you want to rob women from their medals.
so a physical?
I remember that statistic of 1% is totally bunkers. They used a DSD definition so wide that it is meaningless for this discussion.
There is a widely cited but bogus Nature editorial (Ainsworth, 2015) where it said that 1 in a hundred people have trouble with the gender binary, citing the article Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. (Arboleda et al., 2014). Actually, that study says this:
"Using this inclusive definition, DSDs are estimated to occur in approximately one in 100 live births.8,11 However, the incidence of 46,XY gonadal dysgenesis, in which genetic mutations result in disruption of testis development, is estimated at less than one in 10,000 live births."
1 in a 100 is obtained only with an inclusive definition of DSD (which might include things like being infertile and minimal variations with no phenotypical effects. The statistic is actually *at best* 1 in 10,000. The difference is quite significant. Arboleda cites two articles: Hughes et al. and Lux et al. Hughes mentions: "a strong cross-sex interest in an individual with DSD is not an indication of incorrect gender assignment." That is, not all people with DSD identify as trans or intersex. The same article says:
"More than 90% of 46,XX CAH patients [41] and all 46,XY CAIS assigned female in infancy [42] identify as females." Between 90% and 100% aren't!. Lux et al. mentions 0.022%. The same article mentions that almost every diagnostic ocurred on very small sample sizes, so they had to adopt the "inclusive" definition to make the statistics work.
Ainsworth:
www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943#/b2
Arboleda et al.:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441533/
Hughes et al.:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18947601/
Lux et al.:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19383134/
If I remember correctly it also included boys who had an issue with their urethra. Even though in every single respect they were functionally male.
Here is the source we used if anyone is interested in the definitions or other data! www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128096338065523 -Tiffany :)
@@Danyel615 According to their source, that's not how DSDs are determined, so you're refuting irrelevant bad data. 😐
I can't not read the title as "sexting in sports" and wondering why that's a health issue
I invite everyone to look into the report on trans women in shorts made by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports (CCES). They go over the evidence exhaustively and even-handedly.
Trans women in shorts? GTFO with your thirst traps.
Is that the same Canada where they jail you for questioning any of this?
@@drunkenhobo8020 You mean the law that prevents employers from firing someone based on their gender? Oh no, targeting minorities for being minorities is illegal? What a _reasonable_ thing to get upset about. 💀
Honey, if you're going to spread lies about my countries laws, and creates victims in your head, you've been lied to. Please at least pretend to understand bill c-16.
You actually think the person you're talking to is at risk of jail. It's deeply tragic.
This is such a terrible, low-effort take... Testosterone is not the only reason men have an advantage? Then what happens when someone has testosterone insensitivity? They develop as female in the womb. Testosterone is the cause of all male advantage.
The fact that there exist variation is genetic and biological expression is completely meaningless. The norm is the norm and the important thing is the consequence. Being disabled is also a "variation of biology" but do you expect for someone with cerebral palsy to compete against top level male athletes just to be "inclusive"?
Stop shoving your ideology and narratives into everything. The issue are not the facts you present, but your interpretation of them.
Just make a third category for all the 'other' folks or put them in special olympics. Or is going to be insulting to them? Is that not ableist?
Do you think there are women out there that are your peers, and there are ones that are better than you and will remain better than you regardless how much you train?
Or do you think you have the possibility to be better at all sports than all women?
@@NJ-wb1cz If it needs to be explained just how dumb what you just said is then I'm afraid that you have no peers.
@@Ilamarea In other words "I'd rather be rude and avoid the argument rather than prove I'm sensible." Who needs basic decency when you can have abrasive ignorance? 😅
@@l01230123 How ironic.
@@Ilamarea How hypocritical and ignorant. Yes my irony is quite obvious. 🤦♂
There are less unknowns than the video would make you believe. Some studies of the advantage have already been published with more coming out. There was a huge case of Caster Semenya at CAS and that was years ago. They already presented some of that data back then.
a few strawmen aside, a physical?
❤❤❤
I was kinda nervous about this video but you knocked it out of the park. Great job!!
Excellent content!
There are some sports where it just doesn't make sense just on its face: chess, poker, archery, shooting, any motorsport. Like why some chess tournaments are gendered? It doesn't make sense...
Chess is open and women. It's that way to encourage women to play chess competitively without getting trounced by men who are typically more experienced, not because of performance differences.
@@Croz89 Well, chess is a lot about experience and a bit of math... So, to me, if I was asked, it would be all open-mixed. Anyway, it's not like there is a muscle or bone difference that would give an advantage to anyone in chess.
Archery, shooting, and motorsports all require strength. Motorsports most of all. Anything that requires strength favors men.
Chess is quite a contentious one. The greatest female chess player - Judit Polgar - is against female-specific titles and a few other female chess players have rejected them. Can't say they make any sense to me either.
Although I can understand female-only competitions as a means to encourage women (and especially girls) into playing. But only as a lesser competition to the open, similar to age or Elo classifications. The current Norway Chess event is going to have equal prize money, which is clearly wrong.
@@Sal-T
Does the name Jutta Kleinschmidt tells you anything? She won many rally raids including the Dakar in 2001. She even finished 5th in 2016 at the Sealine Cross country rally in Qatar, at 54 years old and in retirement. A middle age retired German enginee driving for a hobby finished before dozens of entrants...
Does Shirley Muldowney tell you anything? Three times NHRA world champion.
Motorsport isn't really about strength... It's more about how you work with the team to prep the car, and how a driver uses that car on the track. That's why Aston Martin is ready to pay a fortune for Adrian Newey.
Archery? I don't see much difference in that sport between sex in that sport. Seems pretty boring regardless of who is shooting. But, in 2010, the record for compound 144 arrow was 1406 out of 1440 and was done by a women. The highest score for a guy was 1394: which, seem pretty similar. That's a marginal difference. The compound 70 m 36 arrows was 351 vs 350 out of a Max of 360: are we really going to bother with 1 point? So I don't see much of a difference there...
Similar with shooting.
The erythropoietin analogy misses the point, there is no difference in erythropoietin levels between the sexes.
If you look at single factor differences you can always find a group to fit into differences. But by looking at natural multiple factors like chromosomes and hormone levels along with physical traits of sex organs the group of not clearly men and not clearly women becomes quite small and competition fairness can be established with reasonable clarity. When there is doubt have the athlete compete in the higher class of what they meet the criteria for. This reduces risk to other athletes that don't have the advantages. High level athletic organizations could also add trans/DSD/other classes for natural and transitioning athletes if honesty and fairness are really a concern.
as a trans woman who competes in women's sports and as a pre-med student, thank you so much for making a well-researched balanced video on this topic!
cheater - shame on you!
Why not bypass the gender question and do basic measurements of strength, endurance or whatever is relevant to the sport?
Its hard to create specific tests for certain sports. Most sports have a range of traits that would need to be measured and each test used would have it's weaknesses in how it translate to perform in the sport. This would just be stacking degree of uncertainty on top of each other. The best assessment for you is good at running is getting people to run. You would have just as much risk of having people being wrongly placed into the wrong category due to flaws in the basic assessments. Not to mention you could just lie about your stamina or strength to put into a lower category and then win.
Because you are reinventing the wheel. You would end up with sex-based categories anyway, considering how these traits are distributed
Because then you'd end up with only males in the most "difficult" categories and maybe some females in the lowest difficulties, recreating the segregation feminists fought to dismantle.
just look at olympic records in men vs. women, it`s not that hard actually unless you want to rob women from their medals.
I will use the same arguments against the theory of gender-based violence.
go ahead. you will find that gender based violence affects everyone percieved as the gender the attacker wants to attack.
I assure u that the women with the intersex conditions that olympics have excluded or almost excluded over get beaten and murdered just the same. Chromosome test are a new thing, for the vast majority of history those were undeniable women on account of their genitals. Maybe infertile women at times, but always women. No peasant in medieval times stopped beating his wife because of a chromosome he didn't even know existed. They were not given male rights for it. They lived the same lives as their mothers ans sisters. And today too we don't chromosome test babies. if the genitals look female that's a girl untill proven otherwise, which in those cases is usually never or untill more test for fertility issues are done. Hell, one of the boxers recently harassed over this shit started boxing because boys in her neighbourhood would harass her.
gender based violence is real. But it depends on the perception of the attacker, not a rare chromosomal test. If an man wants to beat his girlfriend he isn't gonna wait for a testosterone and chromosome test before he does so. he is gonna beat her.
women have a right to compete without men. i know that may sound absurd for men like the host of this channel but that`s how it is. our mothers and grandmothers have fought for so long for this that we definitely not willing to got back. deal with it.
Agree. Women’s sport continue to be ‘protected’ only allowing women. As this piece points out how do the organizers determine if a competitor is a woman. Assigned gender at birth? Genitalia? Chromosomes? Hormone levels? What about women like Mokgadi Caster Semenya? I lack the wisdom of Solomon to solve this puzzle. I don’t envy those who have to solve it.
women did not fight for this right, sex testing has always been imposed by men on women who were “too good” leading to their womanhood being questioned
@@marxcherry wrong. surveys show women are in favor for sex testing, because why wouldn`t they? stop with all those lies. we won`t go back and you cheating men have do deal with it. end of story.
@@alowry2002 semenya is a dsd-man with internal testes. he even fathered a child. go troll somewhere else, bot.
@@alowry2002Semenya has testes. I think that answers that question.
Crazy idea: competing based on performance and not gender. 🤔
Let the better athlete win (regardless of gender). Period.
Just set performance levels for athletes.
And thus recreating the segregation feminists fought to dismantle. The idea of progression means going forward, not backwards.
so men will win everything? doesn`t sound fair at all.
set a fair standard, play by the rules, genetic outliers can have their own competition. otherwise its chaos
@@ChefJollyRoger can you compete with Michael Phelps? Or is he closer to Katie Ledecky than to you, so you two are further apart than men and women, so one of you is a genetic outlier, and you two should belong to separate categories?
@@NJ-wb1cz standard means average. I am very short at 160cm i will never be able to compete in the nba. Does that mean it is fair for me to use special attachments so i can get to 2m10? No. You live life with cards you are dealt with. Trying to get society to bend to you only makes everyone else worse
@@ChefJollyRoger the thing is the genetic outliers aren't getting stilts either. they are just like that. And the Olympics and average are antithetical. if they're the best their country has to offer they could not be farther from average
Some humans are disabled, that’s why there’s the Paralympics
I’m sure its great for clicks, but it’s always shitty to crap on the work others have done on a complicated issue without proposing a better solution. Unless of course your solution is to just get rid of seprate womens and mens sports entirely…
We don't pretend to have a solution! Our intent with these videos is to provide education, based on the work others have done, to aid the mainstream conversation on a topic that is often misrepresented. :) -Tiffany
And yet we will go on letting politicians who can barely do basic algebra or spell author legislation governing these issues. Honestly a state or federal surgeon general should have some level of veto power for any proposed bill that directly impacts public health issues at their governing level.
You deliberately ignored this: The drug commonly associated with East German female athletes during the 1970s and 1980s was Oral-Turinabol, an anabolic steroid. It was a central component of the East German state-sponsored doping program, known as State Plan 14.25, aimed at enhancing the performance of athletes, particularly women. Oral-Turinabol, a form of synthetic testosterone, helped increase muscle mass and strength, but it also had severe long-term health consequences for many athletes involved. This systemic doping program led to East German athletes dominating in many international competitions, including the Olympics. So, hormones in athletes make a difference.
yes im sure he deliberately ignored this just to make you angry, take your meds buddy.
@@eban1127 Ignored what? You were so riled up to insult that you missed making your point.
As was pointed out, many undoped athletes have naturally high levels of various hormones, sometimes for genetic reasons. But we don't punish those athletes. This video isn't about cheating. It's about natural variation
@@rugbyguy59 If athletes are naturally above the testosterone levels (allowed for females) they are not allowed to compete. That's not a punishment. This video is cynical, it should be skeptical.
@@firstlast-em2yq "You deliberately ignored this" - you
did someone hit you in the head with a rock when you were a baby?
I encourage listening to the limited series podcast “Tested” by Rose Eveleth (CBC & NPR), which goes over the 100-year history of sex testing and follows two female athletes affected by these rules.
Maybe go back to presenting data in an unbiased way? Starting a video in a channel that aims at empirical objectivity by saying that sex testing "does not make sense" when it maps onto 99% of cases is quite unscientific. Also, using a possible unfair advantage in the case of a male athlete is not a good example to show it's "not effective" to use biological factors to exclude someone from a women's category, because the male category is the highest one, akin to an "open" category.
Also, I don't know how you decided to conduct your research here, but there are plenty of controlled studies out there where testosterone levels were clearly linked with performance levels in both men and women. Just did a quick Google Scholar search with "performance testosterone female" and the examples I could find were quite clear. Interestingly enough, you can also find how "transitioning" does not negate the physical advantages gained during puberty.
"i don't agree with the facts presented, therefore this is biased"
It's pretty safe to assume you're making stuff up because you don't understand how hormones affects development, and it's a lie that all trans people are on medication.
Gender is more complicated that you think it is. Spreading misinformation so you don't have to engage with actual data will insure your ignorance. ✌
@@eban1127 You didn't understand my comment then. I agree with most of the facts presented. I do not agree with the conclusions. Not the same.
Saying that something "does not make sense" is not a statement of fact, but of judgement. I agree that male and female categories (men and women) do not map well on about 1% of people. That is the fact. The conclusion however, is flawed, as it states that an almost perfect model does not make sense, which is obviously contrary to how we usually evaluate models.
@@gabriyelp don't care not reading your paragraph
@@eban1127 Typical of your kind.
Before we can seriously begin addressing sex testing in sports, we need to first work on addressing the factors that have lead to sex segregated sports in the first place. No matter your opinion on sex testing in sports, it is vital to work on the systemic factors that result in the percieved need for sex testing. And doing this work would have huge tangible benefits for women and sports fairness, far beyond anything sex testing could offer.
Yes, there may be biological aspects causing differences in performance, however there are far greater issues affecting women's success in sport. From awful funding, to active discrimination, to all sports science research only looking at male athletic needs, there is so much more support needed for women in sports than just keeping them separate from male athletes, and addressing these would have a far greater impact on the success of women than any sex testing regime.
If the only thing you are personally doing to promote women in sports is obessing over sex testing, you are not helping women, only furthering divide and reinforcement of discrimination against the very women you claim to wish to protect.
(Edited to include additional detail from a reply below. I doubt it will help increase civility in the comments, but I have to assume good faith that those responding weirdly simply have not been given enough context)
Agreed. The conversation likely needs to start with Olympic Skeet Shooting. For those who are not familiar, it was a mixed event but was split into men's and women's after the 1992 Olympics. At the 1992 Olympics, Zhang Shan was the first woman to win the event. IOC claims they had decided to make the split before the 1992 Olympics but just had not announced it until after. Either way, the optics look really bad.
we have sex segregated sports because otherwise men would win in almost all cathegories.
@@cinnamon8884 even if this is the case, then the reasons for the differences need to be looked at. Yes, there may be biological aspects, however there are far greater issues facing women achieving in sport. From awful funding, to active discrimination, to all sports science research only looking at male athletic needs, there is so much more support needed for women in sports than just keeping them separate from male athletes, and addressing these would have a far greater impact on the success of women than any sex testing regime.
@@linamishima why not both? men are still faster and stronger than women. we don`t need cheating men in our sports - they can f*ck off.
@@linamishimathis sociological nonsense will never erase the very real and very concrete physical differences between men and women, sorry
Ah I knew you'd have a rational take on this. People trying to impose a binary system on biological systems based on elementary school lessons is infuriating.
Just to be clear, this video in no way contradicts the binary system of male and female, it simply explains how categorizing sports by this metric may not be as effective as we could think. No reasonable biologist (and by reasonable, I mean the 99,9% that agree with their field's scientific consensus) would see as irrelevant to classify individuals using male and female sex categories when that's the reproductive system its species use.
@@gabriyelp you're writing a lot of words without saying anything of substance.
@@gabriyelp it doesn't necessarily correspond to usable reproductive systems when we're talking about outliers, and all top athletes are outliers by definition
@@TheRealSykx If you say so... My guess is you simply don't understand or you think that insults somehow negates arguments.
@@NJ-wb1cz Not in the reproductive systems sense, no. Most (almost every, like 99%) elite athlete will very easily map onto a basic biological definition of sex. Being an outlier in athletic capabilities is not the same.
So should anyone who identifies as a woman be allowed to compete in women’s sports? How do even define a woman?
XX
watch the video youre commenting on before commenting? @@TheTechSupportGuy
Not a lot of women competing in mens sports and succeeding 😂😂 by not a lot i mean ZERO
No a days no one knows what or who is a woman
Considering the debacle that was people accusing the Algerian boxer of "being a man" in the Paris Olympics when she's a cisgender woman, how there's a history of this kind of baseless accusation, and how the amount of trans athletes winning prizes is basically zero and not even close to the proportion of trans people in the general population, these are not "legitimate concerns". It's not evidence-based, it's stereotype and generalization-based. In other words, it's not science, it's hate and transphobia. If we ever have an actual measurable problem, and not ones invented by tabloids and social media with lies and disinformation, then we can have a talk.
Gene mutation that gives you blood doping, that's an incredible advantage. But these are competions to find the best human specimen so if its natural its all fair imo.
If that was the case, we would've measured them and paraded them and judged the quality of their bodies like we used to in the past in the human markets
Modern sports are supposed to be about our achievements and the work and motivation, not objectification of humans as specimen. So it makes no sense that if you happen to be born a woman or 5 foot man then you will never be able to win in swimming regardless the effort you out into training, you will only ever be a middling stepping stone for others. Which is why groups should be made for everyone
No they’re not, they’re about fair competition. The Olympics aren’t gladiatorial games
Guess we get to just bar people who are naturally gifted from competing because other can't measure up to what their parents gave them? 🤷♂
@@DtWolfwood no, we get to compete in groups against those we can compete against. This isn't a complicated topic, we've been creating these groups since the dawn of time based on the primitve tools we had to separate people - age, gender, disability. We don't have 5 year olds competing against 20 year olds in boxing, and 70 year olds aren't sprinting against Usain Bolt.
Today we have much better extremely precise tools than those superficial ones, so we can group people way better based on the actual capabilities of their bodies
6 minutes wasted
I agree there is no easy answer here. But I think the best place to start is to have two divisions “Open” open to all men, DSD, trans, NB, etc and even cis woman who want to, and then a separate protected “woman’s” division, specifically for what people would consider to be a traditional cis woman, with the various protections we have today, including genetic and hormone testing. That way woman can still have a safe place to perform on a level playing field, and everyone has a division to call their own…
But this idea that only woman are tested is crazy. Men are also tested too for performance enhancing drugs, so the gender/ sex testing is just one additional test woman have to go through that the men’s (or hopefully soon “Open”) division doesn’t have…
The thing is that "the one additional test" is a big deal for various of reasons. A big one is that it's ambiguous and the testing criteria has historical been changed to exclude women athletes because they were successful. Theoretical gender testing and performance enchanting drug testing is supposed to stop people from gaming the system. However only one ( the one additional test/ gender testing) is excluding people who are not trying to game the system because of things out of their control. On top of that sex testing from the beginning has been incredibly violating with the genital testing. It's gotten better than that, fortunately, but it my mind it went down the scale of r*pe/extreme dubious consent to verbally sexual harrassment. So yeah, I am seeing the parallels you are trying to make between drug testing and sex testing, however it comes down to the fact that one is weeding out cheaters and the other is weeding out women who don't fit our definition of women. Unfair is a word I would use for that test.
@@Casey-ip7ug I mean I think part of the point of talking about this scientifically is to try to get past the poor historical past of the system. People in the past were operating the best they knew at the time, and were trying to get around what they saw as cheaters. While it's true that many DSD people didn't know their past, particularly those born in poorer countries who haven't had as much medical testing done, is the solution really to let them take over the entire woman's sports world to the exclusion of the other ~4 Billion XX women? What would you propose as the better solution or starting point of a solution?
@@Casey-ip7ug The fact that chosen tests for testing women were made to "exclude successful women" cannot be used as a proof of some kind of unjust discrimination because the point of those tests is exactly to root out unfair advantages, the same advantages that would make an athlete "successful".
If the chosen tests work well on 99% of people, it's a good test. Sucks for the 1%, but since it's not something that would exclude you from an essential good or service, it's more than precise enough to be considered fair. It's not like "failing" the test would exclude you from participating in sports, it would only exclude you from a competition in a specific category.
There's nobody looking to create multiple categories That's actually interested in the "safety of women."
Woman's safety is absolutely not the issue here, and to continue to give a false argument credit is to be complicit in the other parties dishonesty.
There are orders and orders of magnitude more impactful areas where women can be kept safe if that was the actual goal. This has nothing to do with that.
@@Jay-ho9io Safety is clearly implied as a direct result of fairer competitions whether we're talking about sex categories or not, but the actual argument is the one feminists used for decades before this new wave of man-hating pseudo-scientific ideologues : we need women's categories in sports to ensure women's participation at the same level as men. Being able to participate in sports gives you advantages and we should want those advantages to not be reliant of one's sex. Unless of course you do not think women deserve these advantages.
Does it make Sense. Yes it does.
Simple.
Those were some extreme test back then. Back then. 😂😂😂
Seems today, the exception is the rule, because you want to avoid cancelation and hurting someone's feelings.
You can't say that DSD is "not that uncommon" and then immediately follow up with "it effects one to three percent of the population." Something that only effects 1-3% of the population is the definition of uncommon.
True, but the issue is that some people assume it's /so/ rare that they're never likely to encounter it in their own life. Meanwhile, if you've ever met a natural red-head, you've probably also met someone who falls under the DSD umbrella. Similar ballpark estimate.
In medicine, many conditions affect less than 1 in 100 people. Relative to that, "not that uncommon" is accurate.
Also, depending on your prior knowledge/assumptions, it's accurate. You're subjectively right too though, numbers seem silly sometimes. 🤷♂
@@l01230123 That's like saying fewer than 1-100 NASA employees are astronauts. Relative to that, it is not uncommon to work for NASA, which is nonsense. It is uncommon to work for NASA and it is uncommon to have DSD.
@@robisacomedian572 I'm saying you're correct too, but what the doctor said makes sense from my perspective. "Not that uncommon" is pretty vague imo, and we could counter eachother's analogies until the cows come home.
Much more common than being an Olympic athlete.
How hard can it be? Sticks against sticks. Holes against holes.
u see if they went by that logic none off the intersex athletes in the news would have had a problem on account of, well, all having " holes" as you put it. that is kind of why their passports and birth certificate say female.
Just have open and handicap divisions and let people choose where they’d like to compete. Solved.
so men will win everything? doesn`t sound fair.
5:38 "And why does that burden largely fall on women"
Isn't that obvious? Men's world record for the 100m sprint is 9.58 seconds, women's 10.49 seconds. There might be some women who compete in men's sport for the lulz but they surely won't get any price money.
Womens sport is a special privilege for women. I wouldn't mind to get rid of it, just let men compete with intersex and women on a plain playing field.
When women are starting to beat men in any sport, they are also separated and the rules are changed to allow men to be the first
@@NJ-wb1cz Any examples? I've never heard of this happening.
@@MadScientistsAreJustEngineers Yeah, Zhang Shan famously owned men in Olympic shooting in 1992 that used to allow men and women compete together. After that they separated men from her which allowed them to get the first place once again between just themselves
@@NJ-wb1cz That's kind of dishonest
"However, 1992 was the last time women competed against men in this category, as they were barred from the 1996 Olympics-a decision made in April 1992, *prior to the games where Zhang won her gold medal."* - Wikipedia
@@unusefulidiot it's not like it was her first event ever, her performance was known.
If you think that's dishonest, name a real sport where women are allowed to dominate men with men both unable to win and also not segregating themselves
Always gross to hear a healthcare operator say, with all seriousness, the term "assigned female/male at birth."
Cry more
I think the problem is your revulsion at a dry term of art, not the term itself.
Always gross to hear someone with no medical training to complain about a medical term
The issue is more like man crowds misusing terms.
The current trend (some groups) of calling women 'females' is an example of it.
@@waffles3629 it's a gender study term. It's got nothing to do with science or medicine.
What is a woman?
nobody knows
and adult human female
If you ask to get a clear definition, it's an adult human female, of course. Then we might argue a little over what "female" or even "adult" means, but for that level of precision, we could just go for the biological definition and be done with it in a few seconds.
If you're looking for some phenomenological definition, it could take a while depending of how precise you want it to be. But the second option is useless except in the context of wanting to study how gender roles are constructed in a given society, among a particular culture at a particular time, and we actually never use it except in how we "guess" if someone is a woman or a man without having access to the data we would need to verify if it maps onto the scientific definition.
Sex tests are important. Athletes that get laid before events don't perform as well because they have lost some of their precious bodily fluids.
My opinion is this. I am fine overall with letting people compete.. My issue lies solely in use the government as a means to enforce this. Cause remember all laws are gonna be a set of compromises and no one is gonna be happy with the final result. People on the left and right are gonna have to face some iota of truth you are gonna have to work with the other side to do anything passing laws. Even if you despise and hate them. No side has a complete super-majority and deluding yourself to thinking you can your ideal law is a fool's errand.
nNow with that being said there is a way to work on the issue where there can a lot less rigidity in rule making. There is still some political wrangling but there is a benefit of things changing when evidence moves a certain way and rules change with it. Letting the sports governing bodies handle this issue is a better thing than any gov't. Each sport has a body and national body and state body and local body..
The government's role in relation to someone's gender is usually just laws protecting victims in cases of gender-based discriminations. The government isn't directly forcing gender compliance, it acts in response to incidents of alleged discrimination.
No one thinks their government is perfect and will always do right by people discriminated against, and it's not their job to define gender, (that's society and individuals) but if it's not their job to care it's easier for people to discriminate without consequences. (Like trying to ban a cis woman from boxing)
@@l01230123 I can agree with your point.. but a lot of rhetoric I've seen from both sides is literally using the gov't as a meanings of enforcing compliance. You should see it. Cause I have. In real life and online there is some people who think the gov't is a be all end all and should be interfering in this issue. I think its more of a culture war battle then a battle of law.. And what scares me than anything is these people will vote for the candidates that be the closest to that agenda.
@@HankScorpio64 Some people have extreme opinions, but there doesn't mean their fears are all unrealistic right? The government can be lifesaving to citizens, or lead to a war.
I know things have gotten more divisive lately, (especially in America) but more of that's coming from the far right. The furthest far left ideas I've seen are basically giving money to poor people, and _very_ few take communism seriously, but there's plenty more women's health violations, white nationalist misinformation, etc. on the right.
In America, only one side is trying to make the president more powerful and above the law. That's currently the side to be worried about taking too much control. The government's role is to serve and protect people, and putting laws into place is one effective step to doing that.
The problem with the idea of "letting people compete" is by letting someone else in, you inevitably push someone else out of competing.
Didn’t know this channel became woke, but not surprised
Yeah. It is horrible that nature do not play by the rules and have gone all woke with people not fitting in to need little boxes. Absolutely horrible!
I hate it when science has details too, like what is that, science grounded in empirical reality or something?? 🙃
always has been
@@SolitaryReaper666 Wow, that's so eloquent and not at all bigoted! I saw a trans woman today on RUclips, like how dare she exist in a conversation?? WOKE!! 💀
Ah good the victims showed up to let us know they're upset
The women not being allowed to attend thing was bc the men competing were naked yeah?
Also they believed women were 2nd citizens on par with slaves and foreigners
Only partially.
There are a lot of inaccuracies in this video. The fact is there is no complication with biological sex. As for using the expression "constant state" to say there is none in the sexes is a straw man argument. The expression "constant state" doesn't fit well when discussing biological sexes, especially in the context of human development and variation. Biological sex is not a static or unchanging condition throughout a person's life. From birth, various biological factors such as hormone levels, secondary sexual characteristics, and reproductive abilities can fluctuate or develop over time, making sex not entirely constant in all its expressions. While the basic chromosomal determination of biological sex (e.g., XX or XY) remains constant, the overall expression of biological sex characteristics is subject to natural variation across a lifetime.
Biological sex, is not inherently a continuum as is implied here because there are clear reproductive roles tied to male and female biology. The rare cases (yes, it is rare) of intersex individuals or variations in sex development don’t constitute a full spectrum in the same way, for instance, that skin tone or height form natural gradients in populations. The key point is that these variations, while part of the biological reality, don't erase the fundamental categories of male and female, which are defined by reproductive biology and not by individual psychological needs or medical interventions.
Conflating the psychological need for gender identity recognition with biological sex creates confusion. People might discuss sex and gender interchangeably, but they are different: sex is biological, rooted in chromosomes and reproductive function, while gender identity is more about personal and social identity. While society increasingly acknowledges a range of gender identities, that doesn’t change the fact that biological sex remains a binary for the vast majority of the population, grounded in natural reproductive roles.
The estimates of the prevalence of intersex traits (ranging from 0.02% to 1.7%) come from various studies conducted by medical researchers, endocrinologists, and geneticists.
The lower estimates (around 0.02% to 0.05%) are based on narrower definitions of intersex conditions, focusing on cases where there is clear ambiguity in genitalia or other physical traits observable at birth. For example:
Leonard Sax (2002): In his critique of Fausto-Sterling’s estimates, Sax argued that a more restrictive definition of intersex, based on clinically significant conditions such as ambiguous genitalia at birth, places the prevalence closer to 0.018%. Brown University and NIH Research: These studies often look at genetic conditions that lead to non-standard chromosomal patterns (e.g., XXY, XO) or differences in hormone production, but only a small fraction of these result in observable physical characteristics.
The higher-end estimate of 1.7% is often attributed to the work of Anne Fausto-Sterling, a biologist and gender studies scholar. In her article “The Five Sexes, Revisited” (2000), she provided this estimate by including a broad spectrum of intersex conditions, such as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), and others. Her definition of intersex covers a range of conditions that might not be immediately visible or apparent without medical investigation.
There is so much erroneous conflation here that it borders on complete ignorance:
Intersex women with higher testosterone levels could have a performance edge over non-intersex women in certain sports, depending on how effectively their bodies use testosterone. However, this advantage is context-dependent, and sports governing bodies have established rules to maintain fairness in competition by regulating testosterone levels among female athletes. The question of whether intersex women with higher testosterone levels have an unfair advantage in sports has led to regulations by international sporting bodies. For example, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and World Athletics have set testosterone limits for female athletes in certain sports. Athletes with testosterone levels above a certain threshold are required to lower their testosterone through medical treatment if they wish to compete in women’s events.